Thought provoking. Unfortunately, I agree that Putin might use a tactical nuke - he has them small enough to be used to obliterate neighborhoods or large enough to destroy a city. The radiation would be less than a runaway Chernobyl, but still pretty bad.
The calculus is whether Putin, as you say, doubles down. He's built his image as a "tough guy" who doesn't back down. Additionally, he's destroying the Russian economy and making them a pariah state. The question is whether it would be worse for him domestically if he deploys a nuke against the "Nazis" in the Ukraine. (He's already isolated internationally so it is less important to him what the world thinks.) The single international consideration here is whether the Chinese would support him if he starts using nuclear weapons. It is Chinese support he must retain. If they tell him "NO", then he probably won't. So, as you say, it comes down to the US and its allies persuading the Chinese diplomats to discourage Putin. It is one of the few times where I have hope that Chinese diplomacy succeeds.
My best guess is that if Putin crossed the nuclear red line, he would do it with a small tactical weapon against a military target. The aim would be precisely to show that he will cross the red line again and again; that gives him leverage and may encourage Ukraine and the West to give him a face-saving deal. And as you say, I think we find leverage from China, for Putin now needs Beijing more than ever. And this is a case where Xi Jinping's interests align with ours in opposing any use of tactical weapons.
Glad you're helping press the case for profound concern on this prospect, Nick. If folks want more, they can explore my recent posts - drawing on the reporting I've done on nuclear war risk since my 1985 magazine cover story on nuclear winter. https://revkin.bulletin.com/the-putin-nuclear-threat-cant-be-ignored There's some concern among long-timers on this issue that today's young people can't imagine the reality of this risk.
It can definitely get worse, but for Ukrainians it's pretty bad now, with shelling of homes, hospitals and even shooting people trying to flee the war. There were no military targets near the hospitals and homes. His troops bomb and shell indiscriminately, a war of terror and destruction, not just conquest. Putin needs to be tried for war crimes.
What I worry about is Putin deploying “suitcase” bombs around Europe and America, THEN using tactical nukes in Ukraine. He could then threaten the world with a lot of damage if they tried anything in retaliation.
Up until now Putin has never been held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of people murdered under his rule. Even now the sanctions are having minimal affect on him and only letting him add to his expanding “bag of grievances”.
The only hope we have is that someone is planning his most glorious state funeral, knowing that they can pull it off they’ll be heroes in both the West and East.
I completely agree that we have to exert extreme care not to do too much chest thumping in the face of a possibly deranged, somewhat humiliated, nuclear armed, chest thumper. I think Joe needs to have a serious talk with the Chinese as soon as possible. If Putin loses their support he has nothing.
My question is simple when will the ICC charge Putin with War Crimes and arrest him and send him to jail? If they don't do something soon he will become more dangerous and none of Europe or North America will be safe from his selfish outbursts of anger.
A peace deal might be possible in Ukraine but would not deter Putin from further aggression if and when he wants. (That’s a very tiny, perhaps negligible ‘if.’) Whatever the terms of such a deal, they would reward Russia for what Putin has done.
Like Hitler, Putin will overrun peaceful neighboring states in pursuit of a toxic nationalist vision. Unlike Hitler, he hasn’t so much sold people he represents on that vision as lied to them about it and about his pursuit of it, and he hasn’t created a military juggernaut. He does have WMD. We should be very clear in saying that his use of WMD in Ukraine would be unacceptable to NATO and would be met by NATO’s use of cruise missiles on Russian forces in Ukraine. Maybe that’s what Biden’s going to Europe to discuss.
We should also continue to do whatever it takes to supply the Ukrainian resistance, assist the people of Ukraine (those in Ukraine as well as those who’ve fled), censure Russia, disable Putin’s Propaganda apparatus in the West, and enable open communication in Russia.
Worked real well for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? You don't negotiate with a monomaniacal dictator who has proven to that he doesn't care about others opinions or ideas. Putin has been fixated on the Ukraine since he was a KGB agent. He'll respond, as most bullies do, to overwhelming counter threat, but being nice to him will only get you punched or your hair pulled.
So there really is no point in having a large conventional force against any large nuclear nation when its leader is crazy or pretends to be. Our large non-nuclear portion of the military is only useful for taking on say Indonesia or Bangladesh. But, of course, these nations aren't threats. We really need a nuclear force and a conventional military capable of taking on countries with small armies.
Nick -
Thought provoking. Unfortunately, I agree that Putin might use a tactical nuke - he has them small enough to be used to obliterate neighborhoods or large enough to destroy a city. The radiation would be less than a runaway Chernobyl, but still pretty bad.
The calculus is whether Putin, as you say, doubles down. He's built his image as a "tough guy" who doesn't back down. Additionally, he's destroying the Russian economy and making them a pariah state. The question is whether it would be worse for him domestically if he deploys a nuke against the "Nazis" in the Ukraine. (He's already isolated internationally so it is less important to him what the world thinks.) The single international consideration here is whether the Chinese would support him if he starts using nuclear weapons. It is Chinese support he must retain. If they tell him "NO", then he probably won't. So, as you say, it comes down to the US and its allies persuading the Chinese diplomats to discourage Putin. It is one of the few times where I have hope that Chinese diplomacy succeeds.
My best guess is that if Putin crossed the nuclear red line, he would do it with a small tactical weapon against a military target. The aim would be precisely to show that he will cross the red line again and again; that gives him leverage and may encourage Ukraine and the West to give him a face-saving deal. And as you say, I think we find leverage from China, for Putin now needs Beijing more than ever. And this is a case where Xi Jinping's interests align with ours in opposing any use of tactical weapons.
I hope :)
I think, challenges aside, Putin needs to be put in custody (the CSTO as marshall?)
Glad you're helping press the case for profound concern on this prospect, Nick. If folks want more, they can explore my recent posts - drawing on the reporting I've done on nuclear war risk since my 1985 magazine cover story on nuclear winter. https://revkin.bulletin.com/the-putin-nuclear-threat-cant-be-ignored There's some concern among long-timers on this issue that today's young people can't imagine the reality of this risk.
Thanks, Andy. This is terrain you know well.
It can definitely get worse, but for Ukrainians it's pretty bad now, with shelling of homes, hospitals and even shooting people trying to flee the war. There were no military targets near the hospitals and homes. His troops bomb and shell indiscriminately, a war of terror and destruction, not just conquest. Putin needs to be tried for war crimes.
What I worry about is Putin deploying “suitcase” bombs around Europe and America, THEN using tactical nukes in Ukraine. He could then threaten the world with a lot of damage if they tried anything in retaliation.
Up until now Putin has never been held accountable for the hundreds of thousands of people murdered under his rule. Even now the sanctions are having minimal affect on him and only letting him add to his expanding “bag of grievances”.
The only hope we have is that someone is planning his most glorious state funeral, knowing that they can pull it off they’ll be heroes in both the West and East.
I completely agree that we have to exert extreme care not to do too much chest thumping in the face of a possibly deranged, somewhat humiliated, nuclear armed, chest thumper. I think Joe needs to have a serious talk with the Chinese as soon as possible. If Putin loses their support he has nothing.
My question is simple when will the ICC charge Putin with War Crimes and arrest him and send him to jail? If they don't do something soon he will become more dangerous and none of Europe or North America will be safe from his selfish outbursts of anger.
I hope not, but it appears Putin has become unhinged and nobody around him to tell him this is not a good idea.
A peace deal might be possible in Ukraine but would not deter Putin from further aggression if and when he wants. (That’s a very tiny, perhaps negligible ‘if.’) Whatever the terms of such a deal, they would reward Russia for what Putin has done.
Like Hitler, Putin will overrun peaceful neighboring states in pursuit of a toxic nationalist vision. Unlike Hitler, he hasn’t so much sold people he represents on that vision as lied to them about it and about his pursuit of it, and he hasn’t created a military juggernaut. He does have WMD. We should be very clear in saying that his use of WMD in Ukraine would be unacceptable to NATO and would be met by NATO’s use of cruise missiles on Russian forces in Ukraine. Maybe that’s what Biden’s going to Europe to discuss.
We should also continue to do whatever it takes to supply the Ukrainian resistance, assist the people of Ukraine (those in Ukraine as well as those who’ve fled), censure Russia, disable Putin’s Propaganda apparatus in the West, and enable open communication in Russia.
HOLD ON! Has everyone read and/or seen what John Mearsheimer is writing and/or presenting in videos? In The New Yorker and also online.
Very interesting !!!
So, is it more dangerous to stop Putin or to not stop him? This is the dilemma, isn't it?
We need to find a way for him to save face, to "declare victory". This might mean Ukraine committing to never join NATO and easing of sanctions.
Worked real well for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? You don't negotiate with a monomaniacal dictator who has proven to that he doesn't care about others opinions or ideas. Putin has been fixated on the Ukraine since he was a KGB agent. He'll respond, as most bullies do, to overwhelming counter threat, but being nice to him will only get you punched or your hair pulled.
So there really is no point in having a large conventional force against any large nuclear nation when its leader is crazy or pretends to be. Our large non-nuclear portion of the military is only useful for taking on say Indonesia or Bangladesh. But, of course, these nations aren't threats. We really need a nuclear force and a conventional military capable of taking on countries with small armies.