The new #NATO secretary general, #MarkRutte, stated that despite the Kremlin’s “reckless and irresponsible” rhetoric, he remains sceptical that Russia poses an immediate threat of using nuclear weapons.
The new #NATO secretary general, #MarkRutte, stated that despite the Kremlin’s “reckless and irresponsible” rhetoric, he remains sceptical that Russia poses an immediate threat of using nuclear weapons.
Using nuclear weapons is the ultima ratio, smth russia (of any other nuclear armed nation) would only do if the state itself would be critically endangered.
Losing the war in Ukraine is unlikely to lead to Russia using nuclear weapons.
NATO troops invading russia probably could lead to it (simply because the NATO is capable of taking moscow etc with conventional arms).
As it is right now, it is unlikely that Ukraine is capable of shifting the war onto solely russian soil (russian soil, not donbass, crimea). So the use of nuclear weaponary seems very off. Its forbidden by russian law (i know, this is a weak argument), it doesnt offer any gains for russia and it is likely to lead to neutral/supporting countries to switch sides towards Ukraine.
And the last argument (smth that isnt popular) is, that right now russia does archieve goals: Russia has taken some symbolic cities, is forcing Ukraine to deploy reserves and has some success in attrition. Ukraine is unlikely to go on the offensive next year, simply because strongpoints have fallen and those forces that could have been used for a 2025 offensive had/have to fight right now to stabilize the frontline.
So all in all, i agree with Rutte, the nuclear rhetoric is more show than a real threat.
octahexxer on
Its almost like we have every western satelite and intelligence agency checking that stuff 24/7.
2 Comments
I believe thats not debatable.
Using nuclear weapons is the ultima ratio, smth russia (of any other nuclear armed nation) would only do if the state itself would be critically endangered.
Losing the war in Ukraine is unlikely to lead to Russia using nuclear weapons.
NATO troops invading russia probably could lead to it (simply because the NATO is capable of taking moscow etc with conventional arms).
As it is right now, it is unlikely that Ukraine is capable of shifting the war onto solely russian soil (russian soil, not donbass, crimea). So the use of nuclear weaponary seems very off. Its forbidden by russian law (i know, this is a weak argument), it doesnt offer any gains for russia and it is likely to lead to neutral/supporting countries to switch sides towards Ukraine.
And the last argument (smth that isnt popular) is, that right now russia does archieve goals: Russia has taken some symbolic cities, is forcing Ukraine to deploy reserves and has some success in attrition. Ukraine is unlikely to go on the offensive next year, simply because strongpoints have fallen and those forces that could have been used for a 2025 offensive had/have to fight right now to stabilize the frontline.
So all in all, i agree with Rutte, the nuclear rhetoric is more show than a real threat.
Its almost like we have every western satelite and intelligence agency checking that stuff 24/7.