Unfortunately as the second largest nuclear power acting as a belligerent, such a threat could plausibly draw NATO directly into the conflict. I don't see a world where a country uses nukes in Europe without triggering a full NATO response. I also don't see a world where NATO negotiates under nuclear threat, to do so would present a long-term risk that Russia believes NATO will cave to nuclear threats and pushes the issue again.
A close example to your scenario was South Africa's nuclear arsenal as well as (potentially) Israel's. The game theory somewhat works out if the belligerent party only has a few nukes and would be unable to escalate to full nuclear war due to lack of weapons. It's considered a dangerous and unstable scenario as such parties could actually use nukes without fear of MAD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_ma...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Coercive_cre...
I don't think that disputes anything you wrote though. Just being additive.
https://theconversation.com/how-russias-un-vetoes-have-enabl...
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/does-russia-s-veto-mean-c...
https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/02/552362-russia-china-blo...
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-boycott-...
Not to say that other countries have not pulled some shit with UN veto power, but it's pretty much a meme with USSR/Russia
Are there real sources here? Not hypothetical—I’d be interested if you have them-but in their absence, this smells like the sort of thing you want your adversary to believe: “He’s a madman! He could do anything!”
(As a related aside, it’s bizarre and uncomfortable knowing there’s certainly amped-up information wars going on right now, that we’re all likely exposed, and not necessarily being able to differentiate.)
https://www.tiktok.com/@melisa_stewart_2.0/video/70694164468...
You'd have to be an idiot to accept a CIA puppet regime sharing hundreds of miles of border with you, particularly one that commits systematic terrorism against its Russian-speaking population.
It's pretty shocking how well FVEY IC have run their propaganda campaigns for everyone to believe Ukraine is in any way "neutral". Very impressed.
Interested in knowing about this. Any proof?
People in southern and eastern Ukraine, eg Odessa, and Kharkiv I think, speak Russian primarily more often than Ukrainian
I do honestly suspect this is about delusions of historical grandeur. Ukraine is after all the historical home of Kievan' Rus (with whom most peoples in the region claim historical antecedence). In its "golden age" Vladimir the Great (Volodymir I, Prince of Novgorod) united the Rus peoples under his reign.
Not "medically insane", I'm talking like "Hitler insane" (who IIRC, was never actually proven to be crazy or with an actual medical disability). Attacking peaceful nations for no reason is warmongering and clearly evil... but doubly so when they're effectively brother countries.
Weapons were too good in the early 1900s, and the wear-and-tear on soldiers would scar them for the rest of their lives. The Axis powers didn't get the message in the 1930s/1940s, so one more ass-kicking was needed, but its overall not a good idea to initiate wars of conquest in today's society.
It’s why China doesn’t invade Pakistan or India, aside from small skirmishes that are in borderlands that are effectively proxy wars.
He has always been a killer,but his problem now is different & significant
It would be a mistake to assume this Putin would react the same way he would have 5 years ago" Source: https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497393912821915648
Later, Rubio says: "Let me stress again that we are NOT dealing with 2008 #Putin
It is a grave error to assume he will make the same calculations & decisions today that he would have made in the past
The old Putin was a cold blooded but calculating killer
This new Putin is even more dangerous" https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1497968757091807234
Obviously, he's not going so far as to say that Putin has "lost his marbles" and Rubio definitely has his own agenda. My impression is that either Putin's cognitive state has changed over the last five years or Russia's doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate" has changed the playbook.
I'm not so sure about that. I feel it depends on whether Putin still has at least some marbles left. If he does? Yes, he realises that leaving a legacy of "war criminal who nuked Ukraine" isn't actually what he wants so the threat of nukes is making a point to NATO to stay out of it. If he's lost all his marbles, though, or if he's so far out of touch with reality as makes no difference? I could see him nuking Ukraine out of spite if it's clear he won't get what he wants, in a sort of "If I can't have you, no one can!" move. Assuming that there isn't a coup before that, or that him giving that order doesn't trigger a coup, etc, etc.