> no reason they will escalate to nukes.

Putin has shown restraint over past two decades, so he probably won't use nukes. Those who may replace him, real hardliners, may be less restrained.

>Putin has shown restraint over past two decades

Ask the people living in Georgia, Ukraine, and occupied Chechnya about how much "restraint" Russia has shown them.

>Those who may replace him, real hardliners, may be less restrained.

In the context of geopolitics Putin is the hardliner. The other "hardliners" are all puppets that are used to give the illusion of dissent in Russia.

>Ask the people living in Georgia, Ukraine, and occupied Chechnya about how much "restraint" Russia has shown them.

Actually people from Chechnya are fighting for Putin now. And the government of Georgia resist attempts to draw it in war with Russia like crazy, so they also appreciate the peace with Russia.

This isn’t actually true. Here is a recently released report from Estonia’s foreign intelligence service that talks about that among other topics https://raport.valisluureamet.ee/2023/assets/WEB_VLA_ENG-rap...

> occupied Chechnya

Interesting framing. Do you also refer to Donetsk and Luhansk under Ukranian authority as Occupied Donbass?

Is it not an existential risk? To allow their enemies to build up strength on their borders has proven to be an existential risk in the past, although obviously they triumphed in the end, albeit at great cost.

The worry as I have heard it that Russia may not be willing to accept defeat in the Ukraine and will use nukes in the Ukraine, not USA or Western Europe - which is of course bad enough in itself - and that this might escalate into a global nuclear exchange.

Your final point is interesting - I suspect it is a logical artifact. The people who are worried about nuclear war are generally people who want to minimise death; and people who want to minimise death generally prioritise peace; and people who prioritise peace are generally labled as wanting Russia to win, as they would give Russia concessions if it means fewer hundreds-of-thousands of deaths - and anything other than a total victory for Ukraine is said to be a victory for Russia.

>Russia losing its political objectives in Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia so there is no reason they will escalate to nukes.

Actually if Putin thinks that it's an existential threat, he WILL use nukes, no matter what other people think on this matter

"widespread death and destruction across the entire planet" does not necessitate Russia using nukes. Russia is not a political island. They have allies. Conventional warfare between the US and Russia would likely draw in countries from every inhabited continent.

Imagine for yourself what "victory" against Russia, China, and Brazil would look like. How many millions would be dead?

Russia's only ally is Belarus (if you can call that an ally since the country barely exists), China and Brazil aren't going to deploy any troops to save Russia