[rsuelzer]

The west makes the critical mistake of seeing this conflict as about Ukraine. Putin sees the war as a single front in a much larger pending conflict with the west. He firmly believes this conflict must occur for Russia to have a place in the future geopolitical order 100 years from now. In his mind, there is no distinction, or tactical advantage, between using a nuclear weapon in Poland versus Ukraine. I argue, Putin is far more likely to use a nuclear weapon against a NATO target in a Baltic state than use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. A nuclear attack on a Baltic state would be far more palatable to the Russian people versus using a nuclear weapon against people who are viewed as "Russian". More importantly, he thinks about history in terms of decades and centuries. Using a nuclear weapon within what he considers Russian territory is untenable in the broad historical arc he has created.

[throw_nbvc1234]

Launching a nuke only makes sense if Putin just wants to try and end the world? A tactical nuke isn't likely to change the strategic direction of the war, it's just escalation for the sake of escalation. He's already losing the war. Launching a nuke in Ukraine or NATO does not mean that NATO respond with nukes. They can respond with conventional weapons and end the war within a week.

Plus there's a non-zero chance that the chain of command refuses to carry out the order and undermines all internal authority that Putin has.

[rsuelzer]

I agree, NATO will never respond with nukes, even if a nuke is launched directly into NATO territory. NATO understands this is a 0 sum outcome. And it's not needed.

I think the risk is that those around Putin (regime), and Putin himself to an extent, believe that a world without Russia is not worth having. And to the regime, Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin. The question is, if there is a 100% chance that should he lose this conflict that his regime will collapse and a 99% chance that Russia could survive a nuclear war on equal footing with the west which will he choose?

Even a full scale nuclear war will not end the world, many millions, likely billions will survive. It will just be nothing like the world before.

[dogma1138]

MAD is there for a reason, anyone who thinks that a nuclear attack within territory of a NATO country or forces within the areas that fall under Article 5 won’t trigger a nuclear response is kidding themselves.

And not only that eroding the threat of MAD makes the world a far dangerous place because it makes a first strike more likely.

That said even if the conflict goes nuclear there are different levels of escalation a targeted nuclear attack on say a military target would likely trigger a proportional response even if it’s a nuclear one.

And outside of NATO the US would very likely respond with a retaliatory nuclear strike against a nuclear strike on its forces where ever they might be.

[throw_nbvc1234]

The point is that they don't "need" to respond with nukes. They can trigger article 5 and start a conventional war and achieve the same or better outcome; possibly without even putting boots on the ground. For example, NATO could (likely) sink the remainder of Russia's Black Sea fleet within a few days of triggering article 5. And/or they could actually establish a no fly zone and be fully justified in doing so.

Responding with a full on nuclear assault because someone first strikes with a Nuke that's smaller then those used in WWII doesn't make sense. You can probably do more damage with chemical, biological, or cyber warfare then a nuke like that (unless targeted at a dense population center).

[dogma1138]

Not only would they need too but they would must response with nukes because if they don’t it makes the world a much less safe place.

If Russia thinks it can use nukes without a nuclear response they’ll use them, this is literally the entire concept of MAD and any erosion of it brings us closer to a nuclear war.

[rsuelzer]

And if the US thinks it can make a nuclear response without a larger nuclear response... Remember the mindset of Putin. "What good is a world without Russia?" It's better to have no world than a world where Russia is not a central player.

[elforce002]

Just how Putin is losing the war exactly? I'm curious to know since that's the only thing I hear since may. It seems that rather than making Russia back down, they are doubling down. This move is basically saying that we're entering a new phase: nuclear war.

[_kbh_]

They have lost more land in the last three weeks then they have gained in a some ungodly large amount of time (three months? more?). They look like they are going to lose Kherson in mere weeks at this point.

Additionally older and older equipment is being seen on the frontline every month we are already seeing armoured units in Kherson that have mostly T62s instead of the usual T72z

[hackerlight]

They pulled back from Kyiv after becoming overly stretched, then their Kharkiv front collapsed, then they lost Lyman, now they're losing Kherson. It's becoming a pattern. They've had no significant gains in a long time, only losses.

[hackerlight]

But their propaganda tells them that the Ukrainians who are fighting are neo-Nazis. So a nuke that kills the army isn't going to be seen as bad. There could also be changing sentiment towards Ukraine within Russia, I've heard murmurs about that (but no good polling, yet).