Russia invades Ukraine

[Class 33]

Some very worrying unnerving articles about in the online media again the last few days. I can't mention too many headlines, as the rules of these forums is that you have to copy and paste the articles here, and that would be fiddly and time consuming for me to do when I have limited time tonight, especially from some websites and how they're set out with loads of adverts in amongst the articles!! I will though post this article posted on the Sky News website though...

Nuclear strike could become more appealing for Putin as options shrink

Two allies of the Russian president have openly criticised his war machine's top brass and pundits on state TV are expressing concerns. Could this open a Pandora's box for the Kremlin which triggers a slow unravelling?

news.sky.com

Nuclear strike could become more appealing for Putin as options shrink​

Two allies of the Russian president have openly criticised his war machine's top brass and pundits on state TV are expressing concerns. Could this open a Pandora's box for the Kremlin which triggers a slow unravelling?

More losses for Russia in Ukraine, this time around Kherson.

Ukraine's long-telegraphed Kherson counter-offensive is making some headway along the western banks of the Dnipro river, between the villages of Zolota Balka and Dudchany around 100km north of the port city.

Ukraine makes biggest breakthrough in the south - live updates

Russia's ministry of defence admitted on Monday that the Ukrainians had broken through Russian lines at Zolota Balka and Oleksandrivka, but that the Russians had taken up pre-prepared defensive positions and were continuing to inflict "massive fire on the enemy".

Just four days after Russia declared all this territory theirs, it doesn't look good for them. And Russian losses are appearing in the public domain, in a way that one month ago they would not have done. Russian military bloggers are documenting Russian setbacks to expanding groups of followers.

The likes of Ramzan Kadyrov, who incidentally has just announced he'll be sending his three teenage sons to fight (including his 14-year-old), has poured criticism on the Russian military command in charge of the Lyman debacle.

As has Evgeny Prigozhin, who recently revealed himself to nobody's great surprise as head of Russian mercenary group Wagner.

Kremlin criticism could work in Putin's favour

Pundits on state TV are expressing concern at the dire state of affairs.

Could this open a Pandora's box for the Kremlin, criticism which gathers pace and which it cannot control, triggering a slow unravelling?

Perhaps. It could also, intentionally or not, serve a purpose for Vladimir Putin.

If his nuclear bluffs are to be taken seriously, and given Russian capabilities it would be foolish not to, he needs to present a case to his people that the nuclear option is - at some point - justified.

He and his propagandists are pitching this as an existential battle against the military might of the collective West, out to destroy and dismantle Russia.

Click to subscribe to Ukraine War Diaries wherever you get your podcasts

A nuclear strike is an abhorrent option in any scenario, but it makes no sense if you're winning.

With Russia losing ground though, and the outlook increasingly bleak, it might become more appealing as Vladimir Putin sees his options shrink.

All very very worrying. This is driving me mad. This is an absolute nightmare what's going on. I believe Putin would be mad and evil enough to nuke Ukraine, and godknows what he'd do after that with his threats of nuking "The West". I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

How an earth that Putin got into power I don't know. He's seriously deranged, mad, evil and dangerous.

 

[Pete_uk]

Ukraine is advancing quite well down the south.

I wish they could get some longer range missiles though.

 

[Sm5]

As does NATO; Operation Joint Warrior normally takes place around now.

Royal Navy leads huge military exercise around the UK

The biggest military exercise in the UK begins tomorrow as more than 11,000 sailors, soldiers and aircrew wage a 12-day ‘war’ around the British Isles.

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

11k troops doesnt sound very many really, when you look at whats going on in Ukraine… makes you wonder how we would fare in similar circumstances.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I believe Putin would be mad and evil enough to nuke Ukraine

He might be. However, the Russian doctrine will only allow the use of nuclear weapons if there is a fundamental threat to Russia. The loss of the "LDPR" and other occupied territories are not a fundamental threat.

I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

Take a deep breath, and think about this from the perspectives of the top Russian military command. A nuclear attack on NATO means the end of Russia. There is no coming back, Russia will be smashed with missiles from the UK/France/USA, and Russia will be completely obliterated. Even if the top brass survives, they've got nothing to look forward to. Russia will be in ruins, their army will cease to exist, and they will be commanding nothing more than their limited water supply.

They are not going to agree to any nuclear attack unless Moscow is in grave danger. If Moscow was in Kyiv's position during the occupation of Bucha and Irpin, then yes, they might authorise the use of nuclear weapons. But they are not going to agree to any use of nuclear weapons if there's no threat to Russia.

The nuclear weapons talk is a classic Russian tactic to disorientate and confuse domestic viewers. They want to get people foaming at the mouth about big strong Russia, they don't want the people to talk about the collapse of the Russian forces in both the northern and southern fronts.

If Putin orders a nuclear strike, there's a very high chance that he is simply arrested and possibly executed after a show trial. Putin is an ex-intelligence officer, and he will know fine well that the military is not going to obey him on this one.

Now breathe out

 

[DarloRich]

Disagree. Putting this coldly, I wouldn't fancy your chances in any big cities, but in more rural areas whilst modern society would collapse, humanity would survive.

you are not going to survive a nuclear war in this country.

You have to remember as well that the sum total of Russian ICBMs, submarine launched missiles and missiles on heavy bombers is about 500, with a sum total of about 1500 warheads. That may sound a lot, but each warhead causes total destruction over an area of diameter sbout 10 miles. Those warheads won't go far when you consider the sheer size of the US and Europe combined.

I am not worried about the size of Europe or the USA. I am worried about the size of the UK!

BTW I think you might want to do a bit of reading on the effects of nuclear attack. .

I believe Putin would be mad and evil enough to nuke Ukraine, and godknows what he'd do after that with his threats of nuking "The West". I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

That is not going to happen on day one. I am worried that a tactical weapon could be used in Ukraine. I don't think Putin is ready to fire his ICBM's at London. The question is what is the response IF Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine? That response starts the retaliatory escalator. How far can/do we go. How easily can we get off? How far will they go? How easily can they get off and so on? That's when things get bad.

I think/hope the USA would stop short of responding with nuclear weapons in a scenario where Ukraine alone is attacked. Hitting a NATO country is something else. Putin knows this.

There was an intreating article in the Atlantic in June (?) by Eric Schlosser and while things have changed slightly it is worth looking at : https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-us-response/661315/

WHAT IF RUSSIA USES NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN UKRAINE?
A look at the grim scenarios—and the U.S. playbook for each

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're dead you have no liberty. If you're alive, you can work to get it back.

 

[DarloRich]

the Russian doctrine will only allow the use of nuclear weapons if there is a fundamental threat to Russia

which is defined by Putin.

They are not going to agree to any nuclear attack unless Moscow is in grave danger. If Moscow was in Kyiv's position during the occupation of Bucha and Irpin, then yes, they might authorise the use of nuclear weapons. But they are not going to agree to any use of. nuclear weapons if there's no threat to Russia.

I don't think it is quite that black and white, especially with regard to tactical weapons - yes a threat to Russia but I bet a threat to Russia is dam sight closer to the border than Moscow!

 

[adc82140]

you are not going to survive a nuclear war in this country.


I am not worried about the size of Europe or the USA. I am worried about the size of the UK!

Putin is not going to unleash his entire nuclear arsenal on the UK.

 

[Trackman]

The original source was a pro-Russian Telegram (Russian social media website) account posting a video of a train with trucks that The Times just decided to report as a "Nuclear Train".

There you go... a simple pro-Russian Telegram post unleashes all this..

Since debunked on Sky News. The nuclear forces in Russia always go on exercises at this time of year. It's unfortunately rather typical of the print media these days to pick up on an Internet rumour and report it as fact.

A so called Sky News expert said something interesting today, if there were going to do it, it would not be in plain view of US satellites.

 

[DarloRich]

Putin is not going to unleash his entire nuclear arsenal on the UK.

well, i mean, obviously!

However, we live on a small island with much of our population in urban/sub urban areas. It wont take many of his bombs or missiles to cause catastrophic damage. We, in this country, are not going to survive a general nuclear war. Sure, SOME people will survive but it wont be me.

Even if the targets are not urban areas we all live close to nice juicy targets. I bet you do to.

if there were going to do it, it would not be in plain view of US satellites.

Absolutely.

 

[Cloud Strife]

which is defined by Putin.

No, not at all. This is defined by the entire state apparatus, many of whom have become very rich off the back of Russian corruption. They are not going to give that up for the sake of Putin's ego. It will be much easier for them to execute Putin and offer a deal to Ukraine to return to the 23rd February borders immediately.

I don't think it is quite that black and white, especially with regard to tactical weapons - yes a threat to Russia but I bet a threat to Russia is dam sight closer to the border than Moscow!

With respect to tactical weapons, it's not that easy to use them. They need to be transported, and NATO constantly confirms that there has been no change in their status or readiness.

 

[DarloRich]

No, not at all. This is defined by the entire state apparatus, many of whom have become very rich off the back of Russian corruption. They are not going to give that up for the sake of Putin's ego. It will be much easier for them to execute Putin and offer a deal to Ukraine to return to the 23rd February borders immediately.

no : it is defined by Putin.

Your point remains valid though: Would the "apparatus" obey an order to fire in circumstances that they did not consider to be a threat to Russia,

With respect to tactical weapons, it's not that easy to use them. They need to be transported, and NATO constantly confirms that there has been no change in their status or readiness.

Absolutely - one of the "de escalation" options is for the US to immediately release imagery of any such movements. That said i still think the risk IS A tactical weapon used in Ukraine followed by the response from the west.

What I cant grade is what that risk actually is.

 

[Broucek]

All very very worrying. This is driving me mad. This is an absolute nightmare what's going on. I believe Putin would be mad and evil enough to nuke Ukraine, and godknows what he'd do after that with his threats of nuking "The West". I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

How an earth that Putin got into power I don't know. He's seriously deranged, mad, evil and dangerous.

You need to stop reading and watching the news....

 

[Ediswan]

Nuclear fallout only results if ground burst explosions are employed.

Fallout is much greater with a ground burst. An air burst does generate fallout, but much less than a ground burst.

 

[najaB]

I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

With respect, how old are you? I'm in my mid-40s and am old enough to remember that it was always "within the last few weeks". As an army brat living in Germany we knew, for a fact, that we were both no more than a few hours away from annihilation and also some of the safest people in the world.

Russia knows as well as we do that "pushing the button" will be the second-to-last thing that they'll ever do. The last being atomised.

 

[GS250]

Fallout is much greater with a ground burst. An air burst does generate fallout, but much less than a ground burst.

Like it or not there would be a number of ground bursts during a big exchange. Silos or facilities with bunkers would be hit with these.

I believe the film 'threads' accurately depicts the end result for the UK survivors. Recovery begins around 25 years after the war as some basic functionality and utility is restored to a few parts of the country. The scenario is presumed to be NATO v USSR during this film. One facet that is excluded though is the chance of those relatively unaffected nations in the south coming together to help those survivors in the North. In fact you would possibly see a mass resettlement or some kind of colonisation of the North as compensation for aid.

 

[43096]

Whilst you're all writing "end of the world" posts, has anyone stopped to think about how actually usable is Russia's nuclear weapons equipment? Because if what we're seeing with the conventional forces is anything to go by, most of them will be unserviceable and those that are supposedly operational might well have no fuel or would backfire or something when activated. Further, if Putin uses a battlefield "tactical" weapon, he'll be killing his own men in all likelihood: they will be ill-prepared and lacking equipment for such an eventuality.

 

[adc82140]

Fallout is much greater with a ground burst. An air burst does generate fallout, but much less than a ground burst.

Generally speaking the areas at risk of fallout from an airburst would have much bigger things to worry about.

 

[Annetts key]

So, hopefully now everyone has finished getting excited about the use of nuclear weapons, maybe we can all calm down a bit.

The reality is that the current situation is that Ukraine is making sizeable gains in taking back their territory. It currently looks like Russian forces don’t have an answer of any kind on the battlefields.

On the assumption that there will be no use of any nuclear weapons (and even if Putin was thinking about using some battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, by the time that they become operational it’s likely to be far too late to make a difference) how far are the Russian forces going to retreat?

Will they keep withdrawing as the Ukrainians chase them. Or are they going to try to set up some new defensive lines and actually try to hold them?

I don’t see the recent men that have been called up making any significant difference for Russia. They will not have had much, if any new training, will be poorly equipped, and their will to fight may be rather low, so when they do experience war, may well be more interested in running away than the so called professional Russian army…

If the rout continues, at what point does either Putin decide to cut the Russian losses, or does another power in Russia decide that they have had enough?

Lack of progress may be tolerated, but multiple routs is a whole different matter…

 

[ainsworth74]

Nuclear fallout only results if ground burst explosions are employed. This would be counter productive for Russia as the fallout would disperse over their own country, and air burst actually causes more widespread local damage.

I mean if your only targets are cities perhaps that would be true but I'm not sure any believable attack design would only involve targetetting cities and as soon as you move beyond that you need ground bursts. Want to make sure you've destroyed hardened bunkers on or near major NATO bases and capital cities? Ground burst. Want to ensure you've destroyed enemy nuclear weapons facilities? Ground burst. The list goes on. There would be enough ground bursts by NATO and Russia in any significant exchange to ensure the spread of nuclear fallout across wide swathes of the world and to lower global temperatures enough to ensure massive famines for those not directly impacted. But I guess on the plus side global warming wouldn't be a concern anymore.

If you're dead you have no liberty. If you're alive, you can work to get it back.

How? If you rise up then the dictator simply threatens to nuke you unless you surrender. Back to square one you go. I appreciate what you say but your logical means that all anyone has to do is threaten nuclear attack and immediately they get what they want. The other side of the coin is that such approaches incentivise other states to develop nuclear weapons.

If Ukraine is forced to give in to nuclear blackmail from Russia either with or without the West coercing them does anyone believe that Taiwan and Japan won't immediately get nuclear weapons of their own? Probably South Korea to. Finland and Poland would probably follow suit not long after as well. Does that make it seem like a nuclear exchange is less likely?

Whilst you're all writing "end of the world" posts, has anyone stopped to think about how actually usable is Russia's nuclear weapons equipment? Because if what we're seeing with the conventional forces is anything to go by, most of them will be unserviceable and those that are supposedly operational might well have no fuel or would backfire or something when activated.

The thought has occurred for sure. But, on the other hand, the nuclear, or at least the strategic side of the nuclear forces, is one of the few bits of the Russian armed forces that has actually seen a reasonable level of funding even in the post-Cold War period and even in the dark days of the 1990s. Whilst some legs are probably suspect (it took them a very long time to get their new sub-launched ballistic missile to stop exploding on launch for instance) enough of their strategic forces would work, at least the ground/mobile part anyway, that the damage inflicted would be catastrophic come what may.

Russia has somewhere in the region of 1,600 deployed strategic warheads*. Now lets assume that not all of those are on hair trigger alert so lets discount the 200 or so air launched warheads, not all the submarines will be at sea and some of the silos or road mobile launchers will be in maintenance or similar so lets knock out another 400 warheads. That leaves us with a nice 1,000 deployed and usable warheads. If we assume a 90% failure rate (which is higher than anything I've seen suggested for the failure of conventional weapon systems but let's run with it) that's still 100 warheads that make it to target. The scale of devastation from losing some mixture of 100 cities and the fallout from ground bursts would be catastrophic even if spread across the US and Europe. Civilisation ending? Possibly not. Though the NATO nuclear response might be ironically if it does cause massive famine and fallout to spread.

In reality whilst I have no doubt that far more of their warheads will be duds or on missiles that will fail to launch than the Russian's expect. I doubt it will be as higher as I've used so you're talking about the damage of more than 100 warheads. Lets say it's a 50% failure rate. 500 cities or other targets destroyed. That's a catastrophe.

*"Of the stockpiled warheads, approximately 1,588 strategic warheads are deployed: about 812 on land-based ballistic missiles, about 576 on submarine launched ballistic missiles, and possibly 200 at heavy bomber bases"

Further, if Putin uses a battlefield "tactical" weapon, he'll be killing his own men in all likelihood: they will be ill-prepared and lacking equipment for such an eventuality.

There's precious little evidence that he gives a rats behind for the wellbeing of his men...

All of the above being said, whilst I think the risk is not zero, I do think the chance of the use of a nuclear weapon by Russia either in an actually attack of a demonstration of intent remains very very low.

 

[brad465]

Whilst you're all writing "end of the world" posts, has anyone stopped to think about how actually usable is Russia's nuclear weapons equipment? Because if what we're seeing with the conventional forces is anything to go by, most of them will be unserviceable and those that are supposedly operational might well have no fuel or would backfire or something when activated. Further, if Putin uses a battlefield "tactical" weapon, he'll be killing his own men in all likelihood: they will be ill-prepared and lacking equipment for such an eventuality.

Reminds me of Slideshow Bob in the Simpsons detonating a nuclear bomb, but just producing a puff of smoke and a load of rats escaping the inside, while revealing the inscription "Best before: November 1959".

 

[hst43102]

Some very worrying unnerving articles about in the online media again the last few days. I can't mention too many headlines, as the rules of these forums is that you have to copy and paste the articles here, and that would be fiddly and time consuming for me to do when I have limited time tonight, especially from some websites and how they're set out with loads of adverts in amongst the articles!! I will though post this article posted on the Sky News website though...

Nuclear strike could become more appealing for Putin as options shrink

Two allies of the Russian president have openly criticised his war machine's top brass and pundits on state TV are expressing concerns. Could this open a Pandora's box for the Kremlin which triggers a slow unravelling?

news.sky.com

All very very worrying. This is driving me mad. This is an absolute nightmare what's going on. I believe Putin would be mad and evil enough to nuke Ukraine, and godknows what he'd do after that with his threats of nuking "The West". I seriously believe it's not impossible that we could be within the last few weeks of living here in Britain, because if Putin decides to nuke Britain, then that's it, we'll be all obliterated, there will be no survivors.

How an earth that Putin got into power I don't know. He's seriously deranged, mad, evil and dangerous.

Calm down... Putin's not going to nuke the UK any time soon.
Russia hasn't even taken their tactical nukes out of storage or taken any steps to use them, I very much doubt that will change in the near future. Even if tactical nukes are moved to the area, I strongly suspect that will trigger a NATO response of either destroying the weapons before they are used or even more crippling sanctions which may well lead to a coup in Moscow.
Take a step back from all the negative news and have a look at what's changed in the last few weeks. Ukraine has retaken key areas and is showing no signs of stopping their offensive in Luhansk and Kherson. The US ans Europe are continuing to support Ukraine with even more high-tech weapons. The Russian army has shown that it is incapable of holding a line that should have been defended six months ago. Sure, Putin has been making nuclear threats, but that's nothing new - he was using exactly the same threats back in March!

 

[Cloud Strife]

By the way, we've also fallen for Russian propaganda. We should be discussing the fact that the UA forces are running riot today, or the fact that Russia is very, very much on the defensive now. The Russian lines are being repeatedly broken, and the UAF are finding that villages are often 'defended' by nothing more than a handful of troops who have no interest in fighting.

The Russian forces are simply collapsing in the south, and it's been impossible to keep track of the Ukrainian advances today. Why waste our time on Russian nuclear threats when we're witnessing the unthinkable: Russian defences simply melting away without a fight.

 

[najaB]

The Russian forces are simply collapsing in the south, and it's been impossible to keep track of the Ukrainian advances today. Why waste our time on Russian nuclear threats when we're witnessing the unthinkable: Russian defences simply melting away without a fight.

That's what you get when you send under-equipped, unmotivated, poorly-trained troops to fight a war that they don't believe in.

 

[DarloRich]

Further, if Putin uses a battlefield "tactical" weapon, he'll be killing his own men in all likelihood: they will be ill-prepared and lacking equipment for such an eventuality.

i am not sure that is top of his list of cares! I take the point about the standard of Russian nuclear weapons but it doesn't take many working to create a very bad day for someone.

Whilst you're all writing "end of the world" posts,

I don't think i am doing that but i do think the risk of nuclear weapons being used is as high as it has been for a long time. Those of us old enough to have lived through the cold war may have lived through times of higher nuclear stress and have a bit more sangfroid but many posters here wont have that knowledge or experience. For instance is the threat as high as, say, 1983, Able Archer, Ronnie Raygun, decrepit Soviet leaders, Operation Ryan and all that?

Mind you, i am not sure anyone KNEW how tense things were then. Perhaps our media gives u more information these days.

Global nuclear war would be destructive and would be an end to society as we know it. But it wouldn't amount to the end of humanity. Nuclear fallout only results if ground burst explosions are employed. This would be counter productive for Russia as the fallout would disperse over their own country, and air burst actually causes more widespread local damage. The "Nuclear Winter" theory has been largely debunked. The major cities in the Western world would be destroyed. But life would go on in much of the southern hemisphere.

could you show your working on this point?

 

[najaB]

could you show your working on this point?

To quote from the Wikipedia article:

Many scholars have posited that a global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to human extinction. This position was bolstered when nuclear winter was first conceptualized and modelled in 1983. However, models from the past decade consider total extinction very unlikely, and suggest parts of the world would remain habitable.

Any conceivable exchange between NATO forces (mainly the USA) and Russia would be hundreds of weapons, rather than the tens of thousands at the peak of the Cold War, meaning that nuclear winter (if it ever was a thing) is almost certainly not now going to happen.

 

[DarloRich]

Any conceivable exchange between NATO forces (mainly the USA) and Russia would be hundreds of weapons, rather than the tens of thousands at the peak of the Cold War, meaning that nuclear winter (if it ever was a thing) is almost certainly not now going to happen.

Nuclear winter is a theory ( and a debatable one) but that isn't the issue. You seem to think that setting off a couple of nuclear bombs in this country will be all fine and dandy after a day or two. It simply wont. ( and i am being factious to make a point)

Our nuclear deterrent has up to 40 warheads at sea at any one time. Whilst we cant know where they are targeted most are going to be pointing at Russia right now. It seems reasonable that the Russians will target a similar number at us. That number ( or even fewer) landing in this country is going to be catastrophic to our society and population. I don't think, once again, that all human life will seek to exist in an instant nuclear inferno. I do think that it is highly convincible that both you and I might seek to exist in the circumstances where the UK is attacked with nuclear weapons.

 

[najaB]

I do think that it is highly convincible that both you and I might seek to exist in the circumstances where the UK is attacked with nuclear weapons.

Assuming that "seek" is a typo for "cease" then yes, I believe you are correct.

And I am okay with that if it means that might doesn't win out over right. If our lives mean that future generations live in freedom then it's a death well earned.

 

[Broucek]

If our lives mean that future generations live in freedom then it's a death well earned.

Amen

 

[Annetts key]

What do we know?

• The media, especially the ‘newspapers’, loves to ‘sell’ stories about the nuclear threat.
• Putin is known to talk about Russian nuclear weapons and known to make threats (by the way is anyone keeping count?).
• The intelligence services of the western countries use all available means to keep a very close watch on Russian nuclear weapons.
• Because of the above, we know that the so called tactical nuclear weapons are in storage and have not moved. The other nuclear weapons have not changed status. There are absolutely no signs whatsoever that *any* preparations are being made to use any of them.
• The U.S.A. and U.K. military and governments are not worried about Putin’s threats (but they obviously have to say that they take the threats seriously).
• China would be extremely displeased if nuclear weapons were used. A nuclear war is clearly not in their interests, you can be sure that they have clearly communicated this to Putin. And the last thing that Putin wants is to upset China.
• Despite threats from Putin, various western countries and other countries continue to supply and support Ukraine with weapons and other help, including high tech weapons that are directly having an effect on Russian military forces and equipment.
• The situation in Ukraine for the Russian military is as bad as it has ever been. So if Russia was inclined to use nuclear weapons, surely it would be now?
• Putin and Russia are just as afraid of a Nuclear war as the west is. And Putin and Russia know that there is only one country where the western nuclear weapons are being targeted at - Russia. Meanwhile Russian nuclear weapons have to target the U.K., France, the U.S.A. and likely other western countries that have capable military forces. Because the danger to Russia is not just from nuclear weapons, but from conventional weapons as well. Putin and Russia know that there is no way that there would be much left of Russian cites or their military if nuclear war occurs.

And remember, the U.S.A. and the other western countries have been very clear that if Russia uses *any* nuclear weapons, that is a red line. Crossing the this red line will result in action against Russia. Something that Russia clearly would not want.

Do you think that Russia thinks it’s military stands any chance against western conventional military forces given how badly Russian military forces are doing in Ukraine?

So, it’s absolutely clear, there is absolutely no incentive, no advantage, and hence no reason for Putin to use any nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

So the chance of a nuclear weapon being used in Ukraine or against the west is extremely small. So small that it’s definitely not worth worrying over. Because IMHO it’s not going to happen.

The talk and the threats will however continue. But that’s not new.