That’s why I referred to “for as long as their mental states allow”. I’m sure at some point the Russians would break, and Putin would end up on the chopping block. But that might take longer than most of us would suspect.
This wouldn’t be good for any of us, but it could happen.
Not sure if this is just an intensification of the saber-rattling, or a warning shot, but either way, I’m not feeling particularly happy-happy right now.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/09/europe/russia-putin-nuclear-weapons-intl/index.html
On Wednesday, Putin warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war, while stopping short of pledging Russia would not be the first to resort to nuclear weapons in a conflict.
“As for the idea that Russia wouldn’t use such weapons first under any circumstances, then it means we wouldn’t be able to be the second to use them either — because the possibility to do so in case of an attack on our territory would be very limited,” he said Wednesday.
Putin’s comments come as the war enters winter, with Russia continuing to shell eastern and southern parts of Ukraine – and faces attacks on its own soil.
How so? Are you positing that any nuclear weapon use by Russia will be met with a nuclear attack against Russia?
The strongest hawks might not be considering it, but the doves know that fewer nukes is better than more nukes. And the longer you put off that retaliatory strike, the more nukes will be used.
Nukes are like potato chips: Nobody ever stops with just one.
I largely agree. If Putin uses one, and there isn’t a sufficiently firm response, AND he doesn’t get the results he wants, he WILL use another. And the more he uses, the more unavoidable the need to retaliate in kind. Which leads us to the scenarios in my OP.
But over and over, we’ve talked about whether our understanding of what Putin is willing to do, and what his allies will support, may be utterly incorrect.
And what exactly will the Ukrainians use for weapons to kill 50K Russians in ~10K WWII tanks?
We’d have to be able to build (and supply to the fighting front) modern high Pk 1-shot-1-kill weapons at 10K/week rates. Or we’d be resorting to using WWII-equivalent weapons, needing to create 1M of them a week to use 100 rounds to kill each tank.
Quantity has a quality all its own. An expensive quality.
I’m pretty sure a force of modern M1-A1 tanks would make short work of them, with largely conventional armaments. If the war gets to that point, I’m pretty sure we’d be okay with giving the Ukrainians modern tanks.
We can build modern tank-killing weapons more quickly than Russia can build WWII-style tanks.
thats just like crying WOLF, imho …
the more he refloats this threat without actually launching one, the weaker his “argument” gets … this time it hardly made it into the news, whereas the first time it was front-page news all over the planet!
The problem with all this is if he’s slowly convincing himself using nukes are a good idea while simultaneously convincing the world he’s crying wolf, there will be a real crash engagement when those two realities collide.
And to the degree he’s eventually serious, the repeated threats he’s giving are undermining the deterrent value of his plans. He’s still better off threatening vice using, but if he’s going to use, he’ll get a “better” outcome if he’s seen as serious, rather than that he’s bluffing.
Most psychopaths suck at 3D chess.
Donno … you recall the (ultimately) Ukr. S-300 landing in poland a couple of weeks ago and killing 2 persons?
It really caught my attention how FAST and VERBAL and FAST the russians were pinky-swearing it was not them shooting at poland!!!
I got the STRONG feeling they were really sweating it right there… I picked up a distinctively defensive vibe from them … (as in “no-need-to-escalate” everybody please carry on)
aren’t there alreadey more than 10.000 MANPADS in Ukr? … that’s one for every tank the russians have on the book, and probably 2 for every tank the russians get to move/fire …
I think he resorts to the nuclear-threat, as there is no other option to “threaten” anybody
"shut up or I send you 300 drunk fellons with rusty weapons (who might or might not steal your bidet) - doesn’t cut it anymore … "
and oddly enough, the key contributor to his running-out-of-threats was this very vanity war where he got ass-whooped for 6+months (and counting) by the Ukr.
Just the funny catch-phrase “Get your complete black-sea-navy disabled by a country without a navy” tells a lot…
so, those NUKES are his “I’ll call my big brother” move
I know you meant anti-tank weapons, but just for the record MANPADS won’t do much against tanks.
This side-discussion got going with @Horatius asserting the Russians could start producing WW-II tech weapons at WW-II rates. Which I argue would overwhelm our ability to affordably produce 20202-era tech weapons to take them all out.
The good news is it’d take the Russians a long time to ramp up to high production rates. So we’d see this coming and have time to develop a suitable cost-effective counter.
This is fair, and of course, one of the relatively few times recently speaking that they’ve apparently been honest. I do think there is a difference between screaming to the heavens “It wasn’t us, really!” when you’re not ready, as to when you’re doing it in a deliberate manner because you feel you don’t have options left.
Still, I would agree that for all of the current talk, it’s more about threat than anything resembling immediate action. Thus the mention of a return to sabre rattling, although the mention of moving away from a retaliatory strike situation only is absolutely an increase (on the verbal level at least) of intent/willingness to use.
But a modern anti-tank weapon is a lot cheaper than even a WWII-era tank, and the US and other NATO nations have much stronger economies than Russia. We can afford them a lot more than the Russians can afford the tanks they’d putatively be resuming production of.
And we don’t need a modern infantry antitank weapons to defeat 60-year-old armor tech. Ever outdated ATGM left in a storeroom because it’s useless against a T-72 suddenly becomes a viable weapon against something like a T-55.
If that’s what Russia is left with, it will only accelerate the slaughter.
But the point was, just because Russia is down to using whatever crap equipment they can manufacture all by themselves with domestic raw materials, doesn’t mean the war is over. There will still have to be a slaughter, because even a WWII era tank can mess up a city if we just let them run amok. So long as Russia has nukes, we can’t entirely eliminate their ability to make war, at least on civilians, and that means, if they are sufficiently motivated (and deranged), this can go on for years.
Any comparison of what the Soviet Union could do in WW2 vs. modern Russia has to take into account that Russia no longer has the communist command economy that worked on an “or else” basis. The current Russian government can’t force people to work for ration coupons.
Maybe Putin still thinks they can? I’m not convinced he’s made the mental transition to this century.
You’re a bit late to the party.
Just last week Putin put the entire Russian economy under the control of the Ministry of Defense. As well as reorg-ing some of the other ministries to answer to MoD. All this is for the stated purpose of moving the economy to a wartime footing where MoD gets first dibs at all the production of everything. Including being able to demand that factories make what MoD wants, not what the factory owners want.