[mytailorisrich]

There's a lot of rhetoric and bluff.

I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine.

That would indeed be a declaration of all out war against a cornered country which only remaining strength at the moment is its nuke stockpile, I.e. it would be madness and Armageddon would indeed have been triggered by Nato, not Russia.

Rather, the West should deny Russia a victory in Ukraine but without cornering them, as has been suggested by some leaders. The West has an interest in Russia not winning but they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.

[reducesuffering]

> I don't believe for a second that Nato would directly strike Russia if Russia used tactical nukes in Ukraine.

Almost no one is saying that’s the immediate consequence. But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine. It’s anyone’s guess how Russia then responds to THAT, then how we respond, then how they respond…

[Someone]

> But General Petraeus already commented how the response would be a collective NATO involvement sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet and bombardment of Russian positions in Ukraine.

General Petraeus is a retiree who didn’t officially speak for NATO or the US government. That gives NATO and the US government some wiggle room.

My guess is that that’s a possible response, but not a guaranteed one. Let’s say there’s a detonation high above the Black Sea with zero direct victims and a prognosis of very few indirect victims due to long term effects of radiation (effectively more fireworks than weapon). I don’t see NATO or the US government sinking the entire Russian Black Sea fleet for that. But who knows?

[Ekaros]

And I believe in that case Russia would be entirely in its right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against capitals of these attacking countries.

[mytailorisrich]

Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?

To me this sort of threat is bluff (or crazy talk by individuals in the military, it happened before) because that'd be declaring war and would corner Russia.

Russia is relatively weak, yes, and no match to the US or Nato, but it isn't Iraq, either.

[sgt101]

It isn't Iraq especially in the sense that Iraq had no where to go. On the other hand Russia can get the ** out of Ukraine and then carry on (more or less) as before. Yes, their economy is totally doomed now because it depends on energy that they are going to have a struggle to sell - for 10 years at least, but they do have a deescalation option. Iraq did not. Ukraine does not.

[atoav]

> Isn't "sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet" directly striking Russia?

Under certain viewpoints it is the difference between attacking the US command in Iraq and striking troups in New York.

The black fleet is stationed on annexed land as of the view of most UN member states. An attack on troups stationed on foreign soil is not the same as an attack on troups stationed e.g. in the capital of an country. The black fleet are military targets on the soil/waters of an invaded country in an attack war. This is the status most foreign ministries would tell you the black fleet has currently.

The question now is: What are the consequences of doing nothing, should Russia deploy tactical nukes?

Most analysts would say there are bigger consequences to doing nothing than to doing something of limited scale unless your goal is normalizing nuke deployment (very bad idea).

So where would you retaliate instead?

[mrjin]

Were you seriously talking about laws? For those super powers, they are the law as long as they can win the war.

[atoav]

Yes and no. These superpowers are playing their power games on a world stage. As such they sometimes need the crowd on their side in order to win. That means that thin veneer of law does indeed count. After all each nation tries to keep their population under the believe that they are indeed the good ones.

That means war cannot move unrestricted from the rules that govern it. Or let's say it can, but at a (often significant) cost.

[mrjin]

Weren't any nukes onboard with Russian Black See fleet? I guess in their position, they wouldn't mind to take the whole world down with them by launching all nukes onboard?

[the_gipsy]

> The West

The interests of the USA and Europe are not the same.

[mrjin]

Indeed. In this case, US would want the war to drag for decades without further escalating. Europe, however, would want the war to end as they are in deep sh*t themselves and there is no reason to continue fighting a war to benefit US.

[ycombinete]

It’s a fine line. The USA also doesn’t want a Europe that is collectively weaker than the Middle East or Asia.

[tomjen3]

The west has some interest in a semi-stable russia, but not with putin in power.

Even if the war ends, russia would stay isolated on the world scene. But they must be punished for what they did, if only to get China to not make it any worse.

[atoav]

The NATO would be stupid if they nuked back, they have much, much more effective ways of striking back than tactical nukes.

One thing that has been suggested was the destruction of the black sea fleet for example which might thread an interesting needle:

- because it is stationed on Crimea one could argue it is not Russian soil, if one does not accept the Russian anexation of 2018

- it is mostly a military target so civilian casualties are not on the scale of e.g. nuking a city

- the defeat of the black fleet would certainly be felt in the (as of now) mostly isolated Moskow circles and political survival for Putin would be hard

As everything war you cannot really 100% rely on such planning tho. Unforseen dynamics may arise that take you for a ride with a destination you may not like. IMO Putin is currently on such a ride and if we had a machine that would return everything to a pre-Invasion state, I highly suspect there would be one Russian dictator that would like to use it.

But no such machine exists, and I think "the West" in case of tactical Nuke use has to find a way of threading the needle, with just enough retaliation to stop the Russians from doing more, but not so much that they completely panic. Doing nothing in return will normalize nukes, so it is not an option.

[trasz]

>they also have an interest in stability in Russia and in an end to military conflict.

This might no longer be the case, given what looks like early signs of China pivoting away from Russia towards the West.

[anon84873628]

Can you please elaborate on this with regards to China?

[trasz]

Russia is world’s last colonial empire. The two reasons to allow it to keep its colonies (ie most of the territory east of Moscow) was to keep it as a force stabilizing the region and to prevent them from being claimed by China. Now it’s no longer useful in the former role, as evidenced by conflict in Armenia, and if China pivoted to the West - given that Russia is a clear loser - it might not make sense to pursue the latter.

[inawarminister]

How is China pivoting to the West? Just last week we have Canadian parliament denouncing China for running extra-territorial "service stations" staffed by policemen in Ottawa.

And you have OPEC+ saying "No." to Biden and the White House repeatedly.

[trasz]

China is quietly following the sanctions, for example - more so than several EU countries. The “police stations” are a red herring from what I can tell.