> You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction.
There have already been what are basically missiles targeting Moscow, any compunction about targeting Russia itself have been overcome and those storm shadows the other day were a pretty inflammatory gambit. It isn't there yet, but extrapolate forward 12 months and I think some sort of strike on the UK is on the cards. May as well be London. The British aren't going to stop until something stops them, if they don't see a red line at hitting Russia proper then they probably don't see any at all anywhere. And Russia has been pretty clear through their targeting in Ukraine that they are happy to go for civilian infrastructure.
Fingers crossed they run out of money or steam before the situation gets much worse, I suppose.
Yup. That’s why London folded after Hitler’s blitz.
Putin is a weak man. His hold on power depends on this war. He’s smarter than this comment because he knows a strike on London of any kind would result in Europe arming Ukraine for a kill versus the current strategy of keeping a low summer.
And this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy. If anything, China is more likely to back Russia to avoid being encircled by the US.
But unified by it. Broadly speaking, the idea that missile blitzes and bombarding a population into submission from the air is as popular by aggressor's as it is proven failed by history.
> there is no possible upside for them in the Ukraine war
There was no upside to fighting Hitler, either. For Poland. For France. For the U.K. When fighting a nearby aggressor you're mitigating downside.
> bloodymindedness
Yes, the peaceful Russians absolutely not sending their non-ethnic Russian boys to the meat grinder.
> this time Britain isn't backed by the world's largest industrial economy
They're also not fighting one of the world's largest industrial economies. Russia is no Nazi Germany.
Putin might be stupid, but you think too lowly of him.
You attack population centers after mutually assured destruction. There is no reason to escalate by creating a humanitarian crisis if you're not already prepared to deal with the consequences (a-la Nagasaki/Hiroshima). The first attacks are tactical and therefore negligible in civilian damage and controversial to discuss. They will certainly be condemned globally, but no one smart enough to stockpile tactical nukes is going to use it somewhere with reprehensible civilian harm. It is both more valuable, smarter, and less costly to deploy it tactically against enemy installations or materiel.
If London is "targeted" then Russia is going to find out just how fucking bad Europe hates them. The nuclear dance is about riding the threshold of plausible escalation without revealing desperation and giving your enemies casus belli.