[chriselles]

This ends, or escalates further, with the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

People can debate all day on whether Putin is a genuinely and popularly elected President, a totalitarian dictator, or a mafia boss.

But what’s not up for debate is Putin’s absolute consistency.

Putin does what he says, and says what he does.

If Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons, he likely will, the only debate is when.

The real threat of Putin using nuclear weapons shouldn’t stop efforts to shape the desired end-state.

A realistic hope may be HOW nuclear weapons are deployed.

An atmospheric test display over remote Russsian territory that disrupts the test ban treaty and global markets suffer some temporary disruption.

A high altitude atmospheric detonation over Ukraine that disrupts Ukrainian communications, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer longer lasting disruption.

A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.

Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.

The west is most prone to economic disruption in Q4 Oct-Dec.

In consumer-led discretionary income dependent sectors, Q4 can be 50% of annual revenue with 25% of annual revenue coming from just mid-Nov to mid-Dec.

If I was Putin I would create and amplify tension targeting western markets and consume sentiment from now until Mid-Dec.

Personally, I don’t worry about a Cold War era Cuban Missile Crisis or 80’s Threads/Day After threat of total nuclear annihilation.

But I do strongly believe we are at greater risk of a limited nuclear display or tactical detonation than at any time since August 1945.

Ukrainian forces have a lot of offensive momentum and high morale, which leaves them vulnerable to hubris.

I am sympathetic and in 100% agreement with Ukraine to defend its sovereignty.

But Ukraine attempting to recover 100% of its pre-2014 territory will likely result in nuclear weapons being used.

My hope it that such a nuclear exchange is limited and that the global economic impact is only 1-3x the ‘20-‘22 COVID disruption.

[simonh]

>A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.

A single tactical nuke would have virtually no impact on Ukrainian military operations. It would only affect a few square km, maybe a battalion strength unit. To decisively influence a significant front like Kherson would take at least a handful of them. To relieve pressure along the whole front would take dozens. Strategic warheads used on the front would do more, but then the radiation and fallout effects would also impact Russian units, and Russia itself. there's also no way to use and EMP pulse to impair Ukrainian front line units without also impairing Russian front line units.

>Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.

Using nukes would remove all the remaining support Russia has, including that from China and India in terms of trade. It's likely the west would impose a total blockade and interdiction of all Russian ports, sea traffic and air transport anyway.

[chriselles]

It might be worth looking at Russia’s unusual nuclear doctrine of “escalate to deescalate.”

I agree numerous tactical nuclear weapons would be required for combat operations, but not necessarily for information operations designed to shape western democratic citizenry.

People like us in the west can more easily afford to have opinions on Ukraine.

People in China, and particularly India can’t afford to have as many opinions when they are struggling to afford food and energy,

COVID related fiscal and monetary inflation is eating a chunk of the real gains made in recent decades.

A bit hyperbolic I know, but India has continued and will continue to purchase energy from Russia as will China even if a small number of nuclear weapons are used within Russian territory, within Russian controlled territory, or within Ukraine.

Food and energy price inflation pressures matter more to many countries than whatever is happening in Ukraine, 3rd world problems rather than 1st world privilege.

Just my 0.02c

[simonh]

True that food and energy security are primary concerns for India and China. Does Russia detonating nukes in Ukraine improve or harm food and energy security? Especially if the west interdict Russian trade in response, as they have with North Korea. The answer to that will shape the response of these governments.

[dirtyid]

Will west escalate to interdicting Indian and Chinese flagged vessels used to circumvent embargo to bring home even more discounted fuel and food? Because ultimately that's what directly harms the food and energy security of these two other nuclear powers. At the end of the day RU isn't the one disrupting their bilateral trade with "friendly" partners. The real question is how will west make it worthwhile not to trade with RU, and so far it's been mostly sticks instead of carrots which is unlikely to work when it comes to fertilizer and fuel.

[simonh]

India and china do not benefit from turning a blind eye to active use of nuclear weapons for military or blackmail purposes. Remember that both India and Pakistan have a few nukes each. It's absolutely against India's interests to accept the principle that military use of nuclear weapons, or threat of their actual use, is acceptable internationally.

[trasz]

There are two problems with your reasoning. First, you’re assuming Putin’s use of nukes would make him automatically win the war. That’s not how it works. Second, you’re ignoring other possibilities. For example, an interesting response to Russian attack would be an “unknown party” detonating a dirty bomb in one of Russian cities. It’s easy to do technically, wouldn’t result in large casualties, couldn’t be blamed on NATO, and would require absolutely enormous cleanup effort that would likely topple the regime.

[chriselles]

I don’t think or believe Putin will necessarily win the war by escalating to the use of nuclear weapons.

I just think he has been very consistent in “doing what he says, and saying what he does” over the long-term.

And that his personal credibility is tied to this conflict, so escalation is likely.

Escalation by Putin doesn’t guarantee victory(or the semblance of it), but de-escalation by Putin is a guarantee of failure(credibility).

The US has just leaked its unhappiness with Ukraine conducting targeted assassination in Russian territory(seperate from train/logistics sabotage).

But a dirty bomb detonated in Russian territory is far more likely to be a Russian casus belli, akin to Nazi false flag action in Poland in 1939 and Putin/Shoigu false flag action in 1999 with the Moscow Apartment Bombings.

[trasz]

Putin said he won't invade. Then he said Kyiv will fall in three days. Then conducted fake referendums, "annexing" territories he doesn't control. Izyum was declared a part of Russia forever from now on, and that "forever" lasted two days. So, this "doing what he says" doesn't quite check out.

As for casus belli - against whom exactly? And why would Russia need any casus belli?