Dark humor or not, problem with using Ukraine as a "demonstration" is that the audience for such demonstration is NATO, and the significant parts of NATO couldn't care less about what happens to the Ukrainians. Nor the Poles, to be completely honest.
Author is quite correct identifying the Kremlin gameplan that's been in evidence so far: manage events conservatively, keep battlefield intensity at a sort-of medium pace, and overall maintain moral high ground for international audience - even at the expense of casualties. I previously belived the latter is a wasted effort, given the global dominance of the US propaganda.
But after a couple years of Blinken's half baked state dept, trashing the EU economy, doubling down on Trump's trying to take down the Chinese economy (and making fools of themselves in the process), carrying water for both Kiev's white-trash fascists, and going all in on Netanyahu's gonzo civilian killing spree... well... Putin's frustrating conservatism is looking pretty mature, after all.
The real test will be the next time Kiev starts to run low on cannon fodder and has to resort to provocations vs Energodar. No nukes are required, but ... maybe shutting down the lights at the discos in Kiev and Lvov could be considered. To be clear, it would have no impact on NATO actions either way. The only items in the NATO toolbox are escalating, bluffing further escalation, and tricking other parties into escalating. It's already clear NATO principals aren't willing to fight themselves.
Excellent! Exactly what I felt that Russia should do. Nuke rabid Ukraine and get it over with. The other nucleur nations would not retaliate because then its the end of the world and no power will put its head on the block for Ukraine. If you have nucleur weapons and you still get bullied around, what is the use of having them? Its the same with Palestine now. No country wants to stick their neck out for them because of the threat of war. Go tactical Russia. Nobody would ever cross your red line again!
I am not against using nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones. But I do not think their usage is warranted right now.
Reason is twofold.
One, by opening the door, even slightly, to their usage, you give implicit permission for them to be used by your adversary. You saw that they kept giving Ukraine more and more advanced weapons. What would stop them, at that point, to not give them nuclear weapons. They can justify it just like they did all the other times, by giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself. Even if not, opens the door for them to be used in other conflicts that affect Russia.
Second, you hold that card in your hand for when you really need it. The next step after tactical nuclear weapons is strategic nuclear weapons. If the only way you can escalate - or retaliate- is with strategic nuclear weapons that is not good. I think it’s clear why.
I think there is definitely a time for this. Notice when the US used their bomb. Japan was almost defeated. In fact, they didn’t have to do it. The reason why they did is to show the world that this is over, they won, and there is no way back.
At some point in the future we will be at that point. Where NATO and the U.S. is weak enough during the coming WW3 - which I agree that these psychopaths will keep moving towards as their influence degrades - where a decisive use of these weapons will have the same effect that the bomb had in 1945.
We’re just not there yet.
But I guarantee you, Russia will NOT hesitate for one second to nuke them when needed ... and US/NATO know it.
In for a Pfennig, In for Pfund: As long as we're talking nukes, let's switch the Theater of Operations and move it a couple of thousand kilometers SSE... from L'vov to Gaza. How about them tactical nukes? At what point do "tactical" become "strategic"?
Dark humor or not, problem with using Ukraine as a "demonstration" is that the audience for such demonstration is NATO, and the significant parts of NATO couldn't care less about what happens to the Ukrainians. Nor the Poles, to be completely honest.
Author is quite correct identifying the Kremlin gameplan that's been in evidence so far: manage events conservatively, keep battlefield intensity at a sort-of medium pace, and overall maintain moral high ground for international audience - even at the expense of casualties. I previously belived the latter is a wasted effort, given the global dominance of the US propaganda.
But after a couple years of Blinken's half baked state dept, trashing the EU economy, doubling down on Trump's trying to take down the Chinese economy (and making fools of themselves in the process), carrying water for both Kiev's white-trash fascists, and going all in on Netanyahu's gonzo civilian killing spree... well... Putin's frustrating conservatism is looking pretty mature, after all.
The real test will be the next time Kiev starts to run low on cannon fodder and has to resort to provocations vs Energodar. No nukes are required, but ... maybe shutting down the lights at the discos in Kiev and Lvov could be considered. To be clear, it would have no impact on NATO actions either way. The only items in the NATO toolbox are escalating, bluffing further escalation, and tricking other parties into escalating. It's already clear NATO principals aren't willing to fight themselves.
Excellent! Exactly what I felt that Russia should do. Nuke rabid Ukraine and get it over with. The other nucleur nations would not retaliate because then its the end of the world and no power will put its head on the block for Ukraine. If you have nucleur weapons and you still get bullied around, what is the use of having them? Its the same with Palestine now. No country wants to stick their neck out for them because of the threat of war. Go tactical Russia. Nobody would ever cross your red line again!
Here’s the thing.
I am not against using nuclear weapons, especially tactical ones. But I do not think their usage is warranted right now.
Reason is twofold.
One, by opening the door, even slightly, to their usage, you give implicit permission for them to be used by your adversary. You saw that they kept giving Ukraine more and more advanced weapons. What would stop them, at that point, to not give them nuclear weapons. They can justify it just like they did all the other times, by giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself. Even if not, opens the door for them to be used in other conflicts that affect Russia.
Second, you hold that card in your hand for when you really need it. The next step after tactical nuclear weapons is strategic nuclear weapons. If the only way you can escalate - or retaliate- is with strategic nuclear weapons that is not good. I think it’s clear why.
I think there is definitely a time for this. Notice when the US used their bomb. Japan was almost defeated. In fact, they didn’t have to do it. The reason why they did is to show the world that this is over, they won, and there is no way back.
At some point in the future we will be at that point. Where NATO and the U.S. is weak enough during the coming WW3 - which I agree that these psychopaths will keep moving towards as their influence degrades - where a decisive use of these weapons will have the same effect that the bomb had in 1945.
We’re just not there yet.
But I guarantee you, Russia will NOT hesitate for one second to nuke them when needed ... and US/NATO know it.
In for a Pfennig, In for Pfund: As long as we're talking nukes, let's switch the Theater of Operations and move it a couple of thousand kilometers SSE... from L'vov to Gaza. How about them tactical nukes? At what point do "tactical" become "strategic"?