I think the whole narrative of "well maybe Russian nukes don't actually work" is unhelpful - if they wanted to use nuclear weapons they would and the weapons used would work. I think people sometimes think Russia is North Korea experimenting with sticks to make fire(and even they have managed to get something working) - despite the massive corruption their nuclear industry and the engineering corps are functional and it's in my mind without a doubt that there is a stockpile of weapons which would work if needed.
Russia is just not suicidal enough to actually use them in the current conflict, luckily.
Sure Putin has broad support and a number of companions but he remains unilateral, undisputed, unchallenged decision maker. Assuming otherwise brings you back into the fold of rational actor argument which has proven a fallacy for some time now. Yes Putin is not suicidal today, although the chances he'll outlive total retaliation strike. But he may feel differently tomorrow, waking up in a bad mood.
Please. Your reply had nothing to do with the context of my comment. I in fact gave you a benefit of doubt that you're not just a very quantized LLM.
As to the trustworthiness let's tally:
- Khasavyurt Accords. Breached by Russia.
- New START Treaty. Breached by Russia.
- Armenian request under allied auspices of CSTO: not honored by Russia.
- Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty, Budapest Memorandum, Border Treaty: breached by Russia.
It's clear you speak very confidently on the subject you have zero clue about.
China also ain't dumb. It would play along but there is no misunderstanding about the nature of any agreement with Russia.
“On August 13 Foreign Minister Sazonov proposed to France to offer Turkey a solemn guarantee of her territorial integrity and a promise of “great financial advantages at the expense of Germany” in return for her neutrality. He was actually willing to include a promise that Russia would abide by the guarantee “even if we are victorious.”
Russia has a strong historical track record of honoring its treaties and commitments with India and many other Asian nations.
Also, one could point at the US and apply your statement more accurately.
Classic scene from "Yes, Prime Minister": https://youtu.be/yg-UqIIvang
On the other hand, there's Sir Humphrey's opinion on Trident.
"It's the nuclear deterrent Harrods would sell."
And even in that case use of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable escalation and they used regular army to (mostly) kick them out and carry on with their earlier invasion on other parts of the front.
(I am speaking about Kursk if anyone is confused)
Use of nuclear weapons when you are mildly threatened is not viable. In the same way as responding to a pickpockets with an artillery barrage is not viable.
"We do not need police as we have an artillery" is equivalent of "there is no need for any other weapons if you have nukes".