It bothers me about the alarmist takes on Russian nuclear sabre rattling that nukes are reserved for an extreme case & the conditions of an existential threat must be met to contemplate use.
Even with a more “liberal” 🇷🇺 doctrine, I don’t see how this war would tick the boxes.
Even with a more “liberal” 🇷🇺 doctrine, I don’t see how this war would tick the boxes.
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1830567091813974516
As much as Putin would like to twist and turn it, it’s not a defensive war for Russia. It’s also not an existential one. It’s a war of choice.
AND it’s supposed to be a minor regional conflict, so nuclear use in such a context would signal extreme weakness.
AND it’s supposed to be a minor regional conflict, so nuclear use in such a context would signal extreme weakness.
Military experts have pointed out that Russia would hardly gain much by using tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. On the other hand, politically that would change the conflict significantly, for the worse for Russia.
I’d assume that since Putin sees himself at war with the wider west, he would want to reserve nukes for a NATO-Russia war. What is he going to escalate to if he already goes nuclear in Ukraine. More and bigger nukes ?
I don’t mean to take the risk of nuclear escalation lightly, but I just struggle to see what the rationale could be from Putin’s point of view to actually use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
It seems to work well on the rhetorical level though.
It seems to work well on the rhetorical level though.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
