This is a ludicrous suggestion, Russia has ruled out use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, even so-called “tactical” ones (and i could go on about how stupid this concept is that westerners seem so enamored with, because there is no such thing as “tactical” use of nuclear weapons no matter how low yield since they would lead to an escalation spiral that can only end in all out nuclear war, but anyway…), especially because they don’t need to use nuclear weapons to wipe out NATO air bases. Their conventional missiles are more than enough for that and they made a point to demonstrate early on in the conflict what it looks like when they use their serious hypersonic weapons when they struck that NATO merc camp in western Ukraine. That was a big wake up call for the West and probably contributed to them deciding not to intervene directly. The West may yet change their minds about that as they get more and more desperate, but if they do then Russia will respond appropriately and in a proportional manner that does not lead to global nuclear war.
Tactical nuclear weapons are typically just lower yield devices for use on the battlefield. The utility of such a weapon against an airfield/base versus a full sized non-tactical warhead is obvious as it limits damage outside the strike area. It’s brain-worms to shit on the term as it does have a meaning. It’s more moral to use tactical lower-yield weapons in strikes on military installations because it minimizes civilian casualties in areas nearby.
Russia has not ruled out use of nuclear weapons. They have very clearly stated they will be forced to use nuclear weapons if their existence is threatened. A NATO member attacking them could rise to meet that criteria though I grant this is a very weak fitting of that.
It does however if true put NATO directly participating in carrying out attacks. Under US own doctrine they’re long past culpable and even by the rules of war under international law a strike from within a country at another country (with the assent and agreement, participation of its military and government) does constitute an act of belligerence, aggression, and war and invites and allows for retaliation against that country in whole which is de-facto engaging in war on the victim country (Russia). Legally, their ass is covered I think at this point. That’s what I’m saying.
One last thing. The Obama admin held a war-game that simulated a Russian tactical nuclear strike on a European NATO installation. Their response was to nuke Belarus, not Russia because they feared it invited retaliation. This was before the Belarus/Russia union state and stationing of nukes in Belarus occurred by the way so it was more swatting at a random ally state and partner.
The real problem around using a nuclear weapon against eastern NATO vassals is not necessarily any kind of doctrine-led spiraling escalation but the PR situation and Biden being a senile, belligerent, humiliated fool who reacts irrationally. You can kill ten thousand civilians with firebombs and cluster munitions and people shrug and call it war, but kill 5000 soldiers with a nuclear weapon and suddenly it’s a monstrous act or barbarity. Pfft.
Right now there’s less to gain than lose in using nuclear weapons for Russia.
However, if the deranged Biden regime keeps pushing and escalating as they seem intent on doing, there’s going to come a moment of decision. The deranged Eastern European NATO members may host strikes from their countries (we could be here now), Russia may conventionally retaliate, they’ll deny they were doing that and attempt to invoke Article 5. At that point even if the US/UK/France/Germany don’t commit, if they get Poland on-board Russia will need to use nuclear weapons and the west and their media will still say they did it for no reason and call them monsters. And at that point if the US allows Poland to go marching in or fully unleashing their air force, they won’t launch a single nuke in retaliation if Russia nukes their military because they’re using them as canon fodder at that point which was the whole point of bringing them into NATO in the first place (so the western Europeans wouldn’t have to die, a free crumple-zone for conflict with Russia full of people the west doesn’t consider fully human). That’s my assessment.
I understand and sympathize or agree with most of your comment, but I feel its built on the predicate assumption that NATO cares about international law. NATO could blow up a fucking school bus and most of the wealthiest countries in the world would still blame Russia.
Where did I insinuate NATO care about international law? They care about self-preservation and all the preaching in the world and self-righteousness they know will not protect them from nuclear blasts.
Oh, well my point with international law was it was for the eyes of the global south, partners, friends, etc. They are in the clear based on the post WW2 consensus. Legally, existing UN conventions can’t touch them. The west is of course hypocritical and they don’t believe in international law, hence the constant refrain of “rules based order”, whose rules? Theirs. And subject to change.
Russia cares about and should care about the perception of their actions not from NATO but of the global south, of those outside it. And those countries do want a certain fairness. If Russia just one day nuked a major Polish city for no reason they wouldn’t be supported for that. On the other hand if they were backed into a corner, attacked, engaged by a NATO member country and retaliated through whatever means after many warnings most of the global south would understand and correctly say the blame lay on that NATO nation and Russia had tried to be reasonable. So yes following international law is important, it shows that Russia/China are unlike the west upholders of an actual unchanging order of rules, law, order, fairness. What I was outlining is Russia has stuck to the process, the laws. They have upheld the letter and spirit better than the west and exercised more restraint than the west ever would.
I understand your last paragraph, I’m just pointing out that unfortunately in international relations, the Global South doesn’t have anywhere near enough influence to challenge the west in it’s imperialist hypocrisy. All Russia has to do is be half-decent, and that’s automatically a boost compared to the west.
This is a ludicrous suggestion, Russia has ruled out use of nuclear weapons in this conflict, even so-called “tactical” ones (and i could go on about how stupid this concept is that westerners seem so enamored with, because there is no such thing as “tactical” use of nuclear weapons no matter how low yield since they would lead to an escalation spiral that can only end in all out nuclear war, but anyway…), especially because they don’t need to use nuclear weapons to wipe out NATO air bases. Their conventional missiles are more than enough for that and they made a point to demonstrate early on in the conflict what it looks like when they use their serious hypersonic weapons when they struck that NATO merc camp in western Ukraine. That was a big wake up call for the West and probably contributed to them deciding not to intervene directly. The West may yet change their minds about that as they get more and more desperate, but if they do then Russia will respond appropriately and in a proportional manner that does not lead to global nuclear war.
Tactical nuclear weapons are typically just lower yield devices for use on the battlefield. The utility of such a weapon against an airfield/base versus a full sized non-tactical warhead is obvious as it limits damage outside the strike area. It’s brain-worms to shit on the term as it does have a meaning. It’s more moral to use tactical lower-yield weapons in strikes on military installations because it minimizes civilian casualties in areas nearby.
Russia has not ruled out use of nuclear weapons. They have very clearly stated they will be forced to use nuclear weapons if their existence is threatened. A NATO member attacking them could rise to meet that criteria though I grant this is a very weak fitting of that.
It does however if true put NATO directly participating in carrying out attacks. Under US own doctrine they’re long past culpable and even by the rules of war under international law a strike from within a country at another country (with the assent and agreement, participation of its military and government) does constitute an act of belligerence, aggression, and war and invites and allows for retaliation against that country in whole which is de-facto engaging in war on the victim country (Russia). Legally, their ass is covered I think at this point. That’s what I’m saying.
One last thing. The Obama admin held a war-game that simulated a Russian tactical nuclear strike on a European NATO installation. Their response was to nuke Belarus, not Russia because they feared it invited retaliation. This was before the Belarus/Russia union state and stationing of nukes in Belarus occurred by the way so it was more swatting at a random ally state and partner.
The real problem around using a nuclear weapon against eastern NATO vassals is not necessarily any kind of doctrine-led spiraling escalation but the PR situation and Biden being a senile, belligerent, humiliated fool who reacts irrationally. You can kill ten thousand civilians with firebombs and cluster munitions and people shrug and call it war, but kill 5000 soldiers with a nuclear weapon and suddenly it’s a monstrous act or barbarity. Pfft.
Right now there’s less to gain than lose in using nuclear weapons for Russia.
However, if the deranged Biden regime keeps pushing and escalating as they seem intent on doing, there’s going to come a moment of decision. The deranged Eastern European NATO members may host strikes from their countries (we could be here now), Russia may conventionally retaliate, they’ll deny they were doing that and attempt to invoke Article 5. At that point even if the US/UK/France/Germany don’t commit, if they get Poland on-board Russia will need to use nuclear weapons and the west and their media will still say they did it for no reason and call them monsters. And at that point if the US allows Poland to go marching in or fully unleashing their air force, they won’t launch a single nuke in retaliation if Russia nukes their military because they’re using them as canon fodder at that point which was the whole point of bringing them into NATO in the first place (so the western Europeans wouldn’t have to die, a free crumple-zone for conflict with Russia full of people the west doesn’t consider fully human). That’s my assessment.
I understand and sympathize or agree with most of your comment, but I feel its built on the predicate assumption that NATO cares about international law. NATO could blow up a fucking school bus and most of the wealthiest countries in the world would still blame Russia.
Where did I insinuate NATO care about international law? They care about self-preservation and all the preaching in the world and self-righteousness they know will not protect them from nuclear blasts.
Oh, well my point with international law was it was for the eyes of the global south, partners, friends, etc. They are in the clear based on the post WW2 consensus. Legally, existing UN conventions can’t touch them. The west is of course hypocritical and they don’t believe in international law, hence the constant refrain of “rules based order”, whose rules? Theirs. And subject to change.
Russia cares about and should care about the perception of their actions not from NATO but of the global south, of those outside it. And those countries do want a certain fairness. If Russia just one day nuked a major Polish city for no reason they wouldn’t be supported for that. On the other hand if they were backed into a corner, attacked, engaged by a NATO member country and retaliated through whatever means after many warnings most of the global south would understand and correctly say the blame lay on that NATO nation and Russia had tried to be reasonable. So yes following international law is important, it shows that Russia/China are unlike the west upholders of an actual unchanging order of rules, law, order, fairness. What I was outlining is Russia has stuck to the process, the laws. They have upheld the letter and spirit better than the west and exercised more restraint than the west ever would.
I understand your last paragraph, I’m just pointing out that unfortunately in international relations, the Global South doesn’t have anywhere near enough influence to challenge the west in it’s imperialist hypocrisy. All Russia has to do is be half-decent, and that’s automatically a boost compared to the west.