The Polish foreign minister already let slip some months ago what's probably really going on behind the scenes -- the US has made it clear to Russia through back channels that any use of "tactical" nukes would be met with the uncorked arsenal of US or NATO conventional forces along the front line in Ukraine. That's, I believe, a legit red line that Russia cannot cross.

As for so-called "strategic" nuclear weapons, nobody is that stupid.

Russia knows full well what it's up against and that it's an inferior force in all respects. All the bluster from idiots like Medvedev is for domestic audiences.

What they can't take by force in Ukraine they'll ruin, covering it in minefields and destroyed cities. If they can't have it, they want it destroyed as an internal example of what happens if you try to toss off their kleptocracy. Belarus among others I'm sure are watching closely.

Yes, I do believe this is the correct take.

Just because they are rattling their rattler doesn’t mean they don’t also have ability to bite. War hawks like to test the opponent in hopes the opponent is rational.

One hopes Russia, North Korea and China remain rational. Yet they retain the ability to strike and underestimating that is foolish.

Eh.. am I misunderstanding something, or did you just suggest that Russia should have shown some balls and actually launched those nukes? Just asking.

I really don't want them to, no.

Those were escalations not red lines, and Putin has not threatened a nuclear response to anything Ukraine has done (or even anything it could feasibly do).

The western media declares pretty much every escalation step to be a crossed red line though. This meme has reached new heights of absurdity.

Edit:

* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Sweden joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.

* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Finland joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.

* No, Putin did not threaten to use nukes if Ukraine invaded pre 2014 Russian territory or fired drones at refineries. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.

* No, "Putin said something vaguely ominous about nukes" is not drawing a red line.

> Those were escalations not red lines, and Putin has not threatened a nuclear response to anything Ukraine has done (or even anything it could feasibly do).

Putin threatened nukes if Sweden and Finland joined NATO, but I'm sure that's just a meme as well.

Promised, no. Thinly veiled threats, definitely, from Putin and other Russian leadership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_risk_during_the_Russia...

Same mistake Obama made in Syria: red lines that aren't actual red lines just make you look a bit feckless when they're crossed without consequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...

Your wikipedia article doesnt seem to have an understanding of what a red line is:

>Crossing a red line to the Russian Federation is often identified as being an action that damages Russian national interests.

It's a bit more than just that.

I welcome your "not a red line" interpretation of quotes like these:

> Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, was more explicit in January. “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” he said. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/01/...

> Anticipating international condemnation and countermeasures, Putin issued a stark warning to other countries not to meddle, saying, “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russia-launches-attacks-u...

The first one is a red line but not one that is close to being crossed, since Ukraine is losing the war quite badly.

The second is an extremely vague threat not to mess with Russia. There is no line drawn at all, red or otherwise.

Do you see a hidden code in these statements or something? I dont see what you're getting at at all.

You forgot that in the first quote he's not even addressing the situation in Ukraine, since that's only a special military operation, right?

Also a chocolate cookie recipe please.

Well there you go then. The red lines are a dot to you.

will somebody please think about them red lines!

Are Ukraine's rather successful incursion into Russian territory and successful strikes against oil refineries and airfields deep inside Russian territory escalations or red lines?

I can never tell which is which with Russian apologists