I'm not sure "the people with nukes would be in a precarious position" is the comforting statement you intended it to be.
If nothing else, these post-Russias would struggle to afford even more to upkeep and upgrade the stash of nukes. And would be easier to neutralize too...
Again, not comforting. "Might as well use them on <hated neighbor>!"
Ask the people living on the Borders of Latvia, Estonia or Georgia what they think of that. These warlords won't respect borders.
>even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.
I think they have even more incentive to use them, far less consequences if they do. Losing your position as warlord of some Fiefdom is a lot less scary then losing your position as the Dictator of a nation with a top 10 GDP, a permanent UN Security Council seat and having personal wealth in the Hundreds of Billions?
Smaller dictators can do less harm, not more.
I'm sure Serbs and Libyans had said the same about Milosevic and Gaddafi for years before they were removed from power.
Even the nukes, scary as they could be, are less of a threat when the individual actors are smaller and weaker. They may not even be able to maintain these nukes. And even if they are capable of using them, they are at a more precarious position than eg. Putin at the helm of Mighty Russia.