Thoughts about Ukraine & nuclear weapons
Thoughts about Ukraine & nuclear weapons (apologies for my wittering. Please skip if you don't want to be depressed).
I’ve seen it said several times over the last year that NATOs response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would be sanctions and/or a conventional attack on the site that perpetrated the attack.
And if the attack is a handful of nukes - a so-called “surgeons” approach - then a massive conventional attack on the origin of the assault might indeed be considered to be a suitable reprimand. It would be military signalling at the most extreme & horrific - but a limited use would signal a desire (on some level) that Russia wanted to keep a lid on things - and a proportional conventional NATO response would signal a reflected ‘reluctance to escalate’.
In short, the fact that the use would be minimal would be de facto a communication that "we both hope that things will not go too far & that order can be restored". Its insanely risky & it could go rapidly & badly wrong - but the hope & desire would be implied, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
My problem is what happens if Putin opts for the “butchers” route? What happens if Putin concludes that there is no option for a victory other than going all in and flatly daring the West to defend a non-NATO member?
You see, if he’s going to be damned for using 1 nuke - and from everything I’ve read, a single nuke is widely confirmed to be pretty darn useless - then why not go for 100 nukes? Or 200? Putin has definitely shown a tendency to double down when cornered and has repeatedly opted for the success-through-force-and-no-fucks-given.
If he goes down the butchers route, then the international opprobrium would be pretty much the same (the punishment for being a double-plus-war-criminal is the same as that for a war criminal) so what would the Wests response be?
Would there be more reticence to retaliate proportionately? Whilst 1 nuke could mean a massive airstrike, what would 100 mean? A conventional attack on Perm? A nuclear retaliation on the Black Sea fleet and the risks of escalation that it would entail? Would the West genuinely consider trading Munich for Mariupol? Would European NATO stand firm in the face of Russia deciding to drop any pretence of being a ‘normal' (i.e. international law obeying) state & using will-to-power-and-damn-the-consequences?
Personally think that the idea of causing chaos within the ranks of NATO by deliberately breezing past the nuclear taboo has got to be appealing to Putin. He’s long stated that he wants to destroy NATO. & what better way than to turn the pressure up to 11.
I also don’t buy the idea that Putin going full Stalin would trigger a meaningful uproar of internal disgust that would destabilize his regime. Whilst Russian public sentiment seems to agree that “nuclear war must never be fought” I’ve seen people characterize the nuclear use in the current conflict as “nuclear weapon use in a conventional war” (akin to Hiroshima & Nagasaki in 1945). Moreover, his propaganda department has already portrayed the conflict in Russian popular opinion as ‘these are historic Russian lands, so we must use all measures to defend ourselves”.
Lastly, public opinion in Russia - thanks in no small part to the Russian Orthodox church - seems to be leaning into the idea that this is some sort of biblical fight against "western satanic homosexual liberal wokism" - whatever that is. I’ve seen too many (admittedly extracts) of vox pops from Russian streets that repeat the ideas that Ukrainians are Nazis and/or ‘hohols’ (a racial slur implying subhuman knuckle-dragging morons).
Whilst using nukes would make Putin a monster in the eyes of Western international public opinion - but 1 nuke or 100 is not going to change this calculation & we start to run into Stalins dictum of “one death is a tragedy, one million a statistic”
Also, by going full Hitler, he’d be able to parade and declare “We kill Nazis! Go us!” and “this is what happens to anyone who resists us”.
Personally, I think that he’s going to use nukes. And not just 1 or 2 either.
If this happens, then what? And where is the threshold? If he uses 1 then this is clearly a desire to keep the escalation gradient to its lowest - 200 would be a ‘no fucks to give’ approach. But is this linear? How does the west respond to Russia using 50 tactical nukes that is any way different from 2, 20 or 200?
Personally I suspect that it will depend on what is targeted. If Russia flattens Kyiv with a strategic weapon, trying to decapitate the Ukrainian government then that’s one thing & an act of barbarity that will demand a NATO nuclear response - but if it’s a handful of tactical weapons then…. There might be a way off the escalator? Maybe? There will be a military response (a conventional NATO assault) - and also pressure on Ukraine to offer a cease fire. I also suspect it’ll be quite blunt “offer a cease-fire & get lots of money for reconstruction, or else you’re on your own - we’re not committing suicide for you”.
God only knows how that will play out.
But I don’t think that this year is going to be nice.
I’ve seen it said several times over the last year that NATOs response to a Russian nuclear attack on Ukraine would be sanctions and/or a conventional attack on the site that perpetrated the attack.
And if the attack is a handful of nukes - a so-called “surgeons” approach - then a massive conventional attack on the origin of the assault might indeed be considered to be a suitable reprimand. It would be military signalling at the most extreme & horrific - but a limited use would signal a desire (on some level) that Russia wanted to keep a lid on things - and a proportional conventional NATO response would signal a reflected ‘reluctance to escalate’.
In short, the fact that the use would be minimal would be de facto a communication that "we both hope that things will not go too far & that order can be restored". Its insanely risky & it could go rapidly & badly wrong - but the hope & desire would be implied, even if ultimately unsuccessful.
My problem is what happens if Putin opts for the “butchers” route? What happens if Putin concludes that there is no option for a victory other than going all in and flatly daring the West to defend a non-NATO member?
You see, if he’s going to be damned for using 1 nuke - and from everything I’ve read, a single nuke is widely confirmed to be pretty darn useless - then why not go for 100 nukes? Or 200? Putin has definitely shown a tendency to double down when cornered and has repeatedly opted for the success-through-force-and-no-fucks-given.
If he goes down the butchers route, then the international opprobrium would be pretty much the same (the punishment for being a double-plus-war-criminal is the same as that for a war criminal) so what would the Wests response be?
Would there be more reticence to retaliate proportionately? Whilst 1 nuke could mean a massive airstrike, what would 100 mean? A conventional attack on Perm? A nuclear retaliation on the Black Sea fleet and the risks of escalation that it would entail? Would the West genuinely consider trading Munich for Mariupol? Would European NATO stand firm in the face of Russia deciding to drop any pretence of being a ‘normal' (i.e. international law obeying) state & using will-to-power-and-damn-the-consequences?
Personally think that the idea of causing chaos within the ranks of NATO by deliberately breezing past the nuclear taboo has got to be appealing to Putin. He’s long stated that he wants to destroy NATO. & what better way than to turn the pressure up to 11.
I also don’t buy the idea that Putin going full Stalin would trigger a meaningful uproar of internal disgust that would destabilize his regime. Whilst Russian public sentiment seems to agree that “nuclear war must never be fought” I’ve seen people characterize the nuclear use in the current conflict as “nuclear weapon use in a conventional war” (akin to Hiroshima & Nagasaki in 1945). Moreover, his propaganda department has already portrayed the conflict in Russian popular opinion as ‘these are historic Russian lands, so we must use all measures to defend ourselves”.
Lastly, public opinion in Russia - thanks in no small part to the Russian Orthodox church - seems to be leaning into the idea that this is some sort of biblical fight against "western satanic homosexual liberal wokism" - whatever that is. I’ve seen too many (admittedly extracts) of vox pops from Russian streets that repeat the ideas that Ukrainians are Nazis and/or ‘hohols’ (a racial slur implying subhuman knuckle-dragging morons).
Whilst using nukes would make Putin a monster in the eyes of Western international public opinion - but 1 nuke or 100 is not going to change this calculation & we start to run into Stalins dictum of “one death is a tragedy, one million a statistic”
Also, by going full Hitler, he’d be able to parade and declare “We kill Nazis! Go us!” and “this is what happens to anyone who resists us”.
Personally, I think that he’s going to use nukes. And not just 1 or 2 either.
If this happens, then what? And where is the threshold? If he uses 1 then this is clearly a desire to keep the escalation gradient to its lowest - 200 would be a ‘no fucks to give’ approach. But is this linear? How does the west respond to Russia using 50 tactical nukes that is any way different from 2, 20 or 200?
Personally I suspect that it will depend on what is targeted. If Russia flattens Kyiv with a strategic weapon, trying to decapitate the Ukrainian government then that’s one thing & an act of barbarity that will demand a NATO nuclear response - but if it’s a handful of tactical weapons then…. There might be a way off the escalator? Maybe? There will be a military response (a conventional NATO assault) - and also pressure on Ukraine to offer a cease fire. I also suspect it’ll be quite blunt “offer a cease-fire & get lots of money for reconstruction, or else you’re on your own - we’re not committing suicide for you”.
God only knows how that will play out.
But I don’t think that this year is going to be nice.