That was substantially exactly what happened with the shoot-down of MH-17. Russia did it, Donbas “rebels” took the initial heat, and most of the outside world made loud noises about avoiding a rush to judgment.
Nukes are a very different and larger kettle of fish than a mere airliner. But Putin has run this play before and it worked OK for him last time.
If Putin kills Zelenskyy and decapitates most of the rest of the Ukrainian government including the Ukrainian military, the whole war effort folds. There’s no longer a government in Ukraine above the provincial level. It’s not like Ukraine has the resources and depth of bench to have a backup wartime government in waiting safely hidden in e.g. Poland right now. Nor is there an obvious number two to step into Zelenskyy’s very big but now very incinerated boots.
NATO might choose to carry the fight themselves into the power vacuum that is the suddenly-failed state of Ukraine. Or they might choose to hold back. Or, most likely, about half of NATO members would want to be gung-ho and the other half would want the opposite.
A sucessful decapitation strike at Kyiv is exactly what Putin wanted on Day Two of his ill-considered war. Had that worked, or had Zelenskyy proven as feckless as many predicted, the war might well have been over before NATO got done clearing its throat, much less tying its shoes.
Putin can’t go back to Day Two. But he can sure open a brand new and very different chapter in this war. A nuke in Kyiv is totally the best move he’s got to do that.
It all comes down to how bad does Putin want success and how much does he fear a failure to win in Ukraine versus a miscalculation that pulls NATO (or factions within the Russian high command) down on his head first? He is totally in a damned f you do and damned if you don’t situation. I am NOT favoring giving him an easy out. But we do need to recognize that folks in no-win situations tend to come up with very messy ways to lose.
I don’t buy that at all. Zelenskyy would instantly turn into the martyr of all martyrs (within Ukraine and wider Europe), and the US/NATO response could use overwhelming conventional strikes to destroy nearly all Russian materiel (vehicles, depots, equipment, etc.) in Ukraine (including Crimea). If, as I suspect, we already have multiple submarines in the Black Sea tracking Russian warships, we could probably sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in 24 hours.
Russia would be declaring war on the world. Even China wouldn’t back nuking Kyiv. Putin’s rule would last weeks or even days after that.
It’s nuts to think the world (and NATO) would just stand by if Russia nuked a city of millions. I seriously doubt Putin thinks they would.
That is not an impressive array of warships compared to the US Navy. It’s likely Russia has supplemented these with some of the rest of their Navy since the sinking of the Moskva, but I don’t think it would make much difference.
If Putin doesn’t care if he lives or dies, and doesn’t care about Russia’s future (and his own legacy), then sure, he might start tossing nukes around (or at least giving the order). But even losing the war in Ukraine, Putin might still have several years of life, and even several years of political power, ahead of him. If he nukes Kyiv? Not a chance. His rule would last weeks or days after that. Surely he knows this.
Turkey won’t let them through the Straights (in a show of neutrality, they also won’t let Ukrainian warships through, because of course that matters). The only additions Russia has made to the Black Sea Fleet are whatever they can haul there overland. They can’t even make more there, because Russia’s Black Sea shipyards are all in Ukraine.
Would Turkey also not have allowed any USN subs through the straits either? Or at least not inbound? Or as non-parties to the conflict do US vessels have free passage into the war zone? I know I do not know.
Of course US subs might be able to sneak in (or out) with impunity. I don’t know enough about sub capability or the waterways there to know whether sneaking in is easy, hard, or pure fantasy.
If the US is reduced to sneaking because they can’t get in legally, and sneaking has been happening, and then one fine day the Black Sea Fleet disappears in several large puffs of smoke, well that will kind of sink our pretense to favoring a legalistic treaty-based world order right alongside sinking the Fleet.
Better from that POV to sink the Fleet using air-launched weapons from planes based elsewhere.
For the record (again) I’m volunteering as the doomsayer, even if I do not rate the usage of such as likely.
BUT
I also think we’re being possibly too hopeful about NATO / the World being willing to unconditionally oppose Russia if such an event happens. Near universal condemnation? Sure. Cripple Russian shipping, naval forces and seize any remaining assets - most probably. But willingness to put boots on the ground to retake territory? That might be problematic.
And that leaves out something Putin may be banking on: USA political divisions. Let the war grind on and if DeSantis or G-d forbid Trump in office with a slim majority in the house and a divided senate? OMFG, that’s nightmare fuel. I could see a lot of “It’s a terrible thing, but we refuse to put American lives at risk for a non-NATO mission. It’s Europe’s problem, and they should fix it, rather than asking us to keep bailing them out. XXX billion of dollars have already been spent, it’s time to Put America First!”
And if the US choses not to involve itself, everyone else will calculate the risks differently.
I would still hope that the rest of the world Would involve itself, and the US (even in this scenario) finally making an effort if only to not look weak to China, but I would have terrible worries.
Especially since the Republican party seems to ignore all enemies foreign in favor of those domestic. Well, enemies in their own minds at least.
But we wouldn’t need NATO boots on the ground. Ukraine already has plenty of boots on the ground, and they’d all be working with us. What we’d need is massive missile and airstrikes on Russian assets, and that NATO can supply a-plenty, without the usual debates about putting troops in harm’s way. Everyone knows the Russians can’t do much to stop top-of-the-line NATO air forces.
They can actually get small missile boats through the Volga-Don canal. But emphasis is on small (draught less than 12’). For example these hoverborne missile corvettes were built at Zelenodolsk on the Volga river in Tatarstan, kinda at the busy backend of Russia.
Okay, back to serious discussion. The actions specifically in Belarus are evocative of an earlier discussion in-thread, where @GWF_Hefel suggested the USA just flat out give Ukraine their own tactical weapons:
Which was mostly but not completely a joke. We were all concerned that if such a thing happened, that Russia would then feel empowered to give nukes to various other regimes such as Syria, or possibly an number of like minded regimes closer to home.
Since he’s done it anyway, fully jumping on to the nuclear proliferation bandwagon, the calculus may have changed, but my hopes for the future dwindle. Putting more such weapons out there, with who knows what level of security makes it more likely they will be used on purpose or by those who feel they have nothing left to lose. Or hell, just get lost in the shuffle and end up in non-governmental hands who are a lot LESS likely to have anything to lose in the first place.
What possible use could Russia have for putting ICBMs in Belarus? The whole point of an intercontinental missile is that it can be launched from anywhere on Earth, and reach a target anywhere else. And so it’s naturally standard procedure for any country with them to put them in their own country, in some remote region, for maximum security.
The only two things I can come up with that make any sense whatsoever:
1: Putin has nothing left but nukes, and wants to find some way to mention them to everyone as a reminder. But that’s pretty inept messaging, for any professional politician: He could have just come right out and said “Remember, I have ICBMs, that can strike New York, London, or Washington directly, from right here in Siberia”.
2: Putin has nothing left but nukes, and he’s so desperate for help of various sorts from other countries that he’s willing to sell off the only thing he has left to sell in order to get it. I guess this one at least has some rational thought behind it, but damn, if he’s that desperate…
Or this is really Lukashenka loudly kissing the Boss’es ring while Putin smiles blandly.
Or he’s hoping that maybe, just maybe, he can get some of these things installed in his country with enough ambiguity about who’s got launch authority so that he too becomes regime-change-proof.
Or best yet, he gets some Russian ICBMs installed, a regime change later occurs in Moscow and he now has what Ukraine gave up: an independent nuclear deterrent to call his own.
This seems unlikely to me. If Ukraine joins NATO while they are still at war with Russia, then article 5 gets invoked immediately upon their admission. This means there’s no way NATO will choose to admit Ukraine until the conflict with Russia has ended. Putin knows this, so he is incentivized to not end the conflict. He does not have to conquer Ukraine, and does not have to maintain a high intensity conflict - just enough conflict so that a few soldiers die here and there on both sides on a regular basis. A bit of a squabble. More of a tiff, really. It wouldn’t be any kind of attempt at victory, just long-term maintenance to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. Russia can sustain that low level of conflict for an awful long time, I’m sure. I think the only way out of this is ratcheting up sanctions until the Russian populace is so miserable that civil unrest becomes a major concern for Putin.