Stockholm presumably no. But Article 5 states that in case of NATO countries the answer is yes. It has never been tested, the French never bought it, hence their own nuclear program, but the Russians bought it for about 70 years, I don't think this has changed.
It's true that American credibility has taken many hits in the past years, Vietnam, Afghanistan, a certain presidents statements about NATO. But I am not convinced the Russian leadership is willing to risk being wrong about this.
> The West has already deployed financial nukes. For Russia, there isn't that much left to lose anymore.
Actually, Russia still has a lot more to lose. The West hasn't yet deployed it's tech nukes. Imagine coordinated wipe and bricking of all iOS, Android and Windows devices in Russia, then cutting the country off from internet. Instant stone age that would make those financial sanctions look like a picnic in comparison.
Kind of agree with you, nothing can be taken for sure right now.
Regarding the exact nuclear strategy to be used, I suspect better brains are thinking about this already, but my take is, they'll go for intimidation. Blowing up a tactical, somewhere in Ukraini, in the middle of nothing. Then they'll just ask for Zelensky to hand them an unconditional surrender ...or else.
I think that after having watched a nuclear device gone off inside your country, few will remain confident they could avoid being obliterated without warning.
I know these are harsh words, I'm just trying to state my opinion very clearly. Hope you all guys there keep kicking it.
There is no such thing as financial nukes. During the cold war there was practically an embargo against the Soviet Union and no nuclear exchanges.
> For Russia, there isn't that much left to lose anymore.
Of course there is, their lives first and foremost, MAD still applies even thought we got used to it.
The only question is whether the nuclear powers of NATO would use their weapons to retaliate against a nuclear attack on their allies. My position is not that they would, my position is that it's not in Russia's interest to test them and that they also know this.
"Somebody" just proved himself willing and able to hurl nukes at large population centers for no rational reason. Do we cower, pray and hope his psychosis won't target us next, or do we try to take him out as fast as we can?
It would be a demonstration of what would happen to Western population centers if the West crosses any red lines drawn by Putin. He is done with 25 years of poking and prodding and has already warned Sweden and Finland about severe consequences if they join NATO.
It doesn't have to be Stockholm. Any city in the region with 50,000 inhabitants or more delivers the same message: this is my backyard and you shall not interfere.
It's true that American credibility has taken many hits in the past years, Vietnam, Afghanistan, a certain presidents statements about NATO. But I am not convinced the Russian leadership is willing to risk being wrong about this.
The risk is much more than a bloody nose.