.
I believe that the ability to end a RUS-NATO war with a RUS threat of using 'tactical' nukes against attempts of reconquest (and against airbases) is an essential requirement for Russia to dare attack any NATO member for real. They could not win in a conventional war.
Exactly this nuclear threat has been eroded by the inflationary bluffing with nukes since 2022.*
Thus IMO Russia wouldn't dare now to attack NATO anytime soon even if a fairy gave them back all troops and material they spent against Ukraine and all of Ukraine surrendered, handing over all its equipment.
related:
S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
*: Reputation can be built up, but it can also be spent. Russia spent its 'nuclear threats credibility'. I understand that there are weak-minded pussies in positions of importance in the West as well and there's a bit of a 'Putin's 5th cohort' in power in Hungary and Slovakia, but an all-out stop of hostilities in a Russo-NATO or Russo-EU war just because Russia threatens with tactical nukes seems to be a ridiculous notion to me.
.
I certainly agree that Russia has spent most of its nuclear credibility, but I have to disagree about the likelihood of a Russian attack against NATO in the aftermath of a potential Russian victory in Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteAt that point, Russia has not only already spent any good will and economic ties holding it back, it also has a mobilized war economy and faces imminent economic collapse in the mid term. They will need to attack NATO in a short time frame after such a victory to capitalize on their already mobilized war economy (vs the west's peace time economy) and avoid economic collapse before they have achieved their objectives.
If Russia wins in Ukraine, they WILL attack NATO (and hope to terrify NATO into favorable terms quickly), wether they have any chance of winning such a war in the long term or not. They're essentially 1941 Japan at that point.
Washing machines! Don't forget they are cannibalising washing machines!
ReplyDelete