I had this mind as I wrote up my post but didn't mention it because I didn't consider the nuclear option as a serious option. Or maybe I'm just optimistic/delusional.
But how would the nuclear option play out?
Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes
I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are).
As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.
I dont understand how someone in the western world could read history and still believe that doing exactly what they did at the start of WW2 will bring a different result.
Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia just before WW2, and the allies didn't do much. Only when Germany invaded Poland did they declare war on Germany.
> Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.
I don't believe this, unless you define "significance" as nothing more than having your name in the world newspapers, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry.
Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it.
They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.
Italy's GDP is $1.87T.
Russia's GDP is $1.48T, down from around $2.3T in 2013.
Russia's economy is dependent on fossil fuels. While the decrease in Europe's use of nuclear power has been a gift to Russia, the future for fossil fuels is not bright and Russia's kleptocratic government has starved the nation of economic innovation.
I don't know what "extremely significant country" means here, but Russia is objectively a country in decline both in terms of economic and cultural power.
In terms of real GDP (PPP), Russia is at $4.3T while Italy is at $2.6T. Russia has the 6th largest GDP by this metric. However, I'm not sure how to think about real GDP vs. nominal GDP when it comes to war.
Hitler in 1939 had economic/industrial parity with at least one, if not two of his primary combatants (France and UK). He then had good reason to believe that other countries either would not engage (USA) or were highly overrated (USSR). He also had allies of significant weight. (1)
Russia in 2022 has a GDP of $1.5T, and NATO has a combined GDP of $42T (2). Even if you make the case that Russia's current economic activity translates more effectively into wartime industry, I don't believe you can possibly make the case that it is 28x more effective.
Germany also had military technology and strategy advantages (see France in 1940) over its (early war) opponents. As good as Russia's "math and science talent" is, I would be shocked if it was even a quarter of the capability that the US alone has.
So no, Putin in 2022 is not comparable to Hitler in 1939.
The problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before:
Does NATO intervene when Russia starts (or really continues) courting pro-Russian politicians?
Does it intervene if that minority starts protesting?
Does it when that minority starts resisting?
Does it when Russia smuggles them arms?
Does it when little green men show up?
Does it when the rebels (now mostly little green men) advance West?
This go around the West tried sanctions and it obviously didn't work. Estonia is far more Western and fewer historic ties to Russia than Ukraine did. So it might not progress past step 1 in the playbook. Almost certain that Putin is going to try and likely will try for at least a couple decades to come.
They absolutely will, I have zero doubt. Because otherwise NATO would be completely pointless and this would strengthen Putin even more, making him an even bigger treat for western countries.
I think it's in NATO's interest to believe in this steadfastly, but my imagination says that there are other scenarios. It's a gamble, but the best way to damage NATO is to make an ambiguous or small attack that makes it not invoke article 5 or to not respond properly.
My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war. Of course this fails the overarching theory (MAD, tit for tat etc), but I wouldn't think it's impossible. Maybe for example USA would say it wants to respond with sanctions to avoid a larger war.
* Use natural resource control to pressure countries
* Use military as a last resort when influence fails
Basically, make energy deals with Germany, ignore the US and UK and install puppet governments in Eastern Europe through bribery and propaganda until they can be annexed or granted “special status”.
> My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war.
But how can you establish facts, when you have to kill hundreds or thousands of US soldiers in NATO country first? Do you think that the US will say "shit happens" lets do some financial sanctions? Biden already said that as soon as russians shoot US troops we have WW3. And I think no other conclusion could be drawn here.
The US has troops in the eastern NATO states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ...), more than ever and likely more to come. Biden made it very clear, if russians open fire on US troops (NATO), we have WW3.
If that Russian oligarch is deluded into believing MAD is now obsolete due to some top secret technology or military maneuver or whatever than all bets are off
That's what has been causing more tension than the actual nukes for a while now - effective countermeasures, or ICBM countermeasures. If one party has an effective countermeasure against ICBMs, it takes away MAD and the one holding the countermeasure gets to claim military superiority.
Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).
I think fear of countermeasures unbalancing MAD is also what’s driving development of Russia’s non-ballistic missile based warhead delivery systems, like status-6 [1].
I doubt it. I really don't think he would choose a nuclear option, but rather an option in which his Russian troops fight NATO to the very end, something like Japan in the end of WWII. Except that this time, we can't use nukes.
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.
> But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation.
Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.
There is no chance of survival. As soon as your missiles leave the earth or the sea, the enemy launches their entire salvo before your strike has time to hit its targets, and the world ends.
Yes, it's called MAD. I think it's been settled fact for decades that any country launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear armed country will be in turn annihilated. There is no survival.
War is complicated, confusing, and messy. An all out conflict greatly increases the odds of a situation where Putin thinks a nuclear attack is imminent and decides to strike first.
Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?
This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved.
All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too.
Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe.
Do I intervene?
In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.
It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania?
After all, Putin told 2 days ago he wants NATO out of Romania and Bulgaria:
Russia is most likely incapable of carrying any sustained conflict as far as Serbia, Bulgaria, or Romania, particularly when the last 2 are NATO members. They can cause disruption in other ways but no effective open conflict.
But Russia doesn't need to fight those countries. They are hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian border. Ukraine on the other hand is hundreds of meters away. Having Ukraine in NATO or in the EU is a threat to Russia and its leadership today. So Russia will look to poison Ukraine for these 2 organizations and make it an unattractive member.
When EU got too close in 2013-2014 Russia responded in exactly the same way. Both the US and Russia have reacted in the same manner when the enemy tried to reach their borders in any way (via Cuba or via Ukraine). So in 2022 pursuing any relationship particularly between NATO and Ukraine could not have had any other result. It is absolutely inconceivable that this was unexpected given the obviousness, so it's a safe assumption that the goal is to keep Russia fighting and draining the little they have left, with Ukraine paying the (biggest) price. "Buffer" countries always do.
Ukraine was already 'poisoned' for NATO, due to the Crimea annexation and the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists. No need for an invasion to poison anything further.
My view is that this is about maintaining a fading colonial empire. Ukraine has been drifting away from Russian influence at least since 2014 and since Russia does not have the economy to re-assert its influence through trade it has to do so by military means.
I have no facts to base it on other than news propaganda, but I think they are too late to re-capture Ukraine and this rather desperate move will only bolster the Ukrainian nationalism. The Russian forces also will not be able to hold the Ukraine well enough to extract any sort of economic benefit from it. 45 million is a lot of people.
It's unlikely that they want to hold on to Ukraine. They have recognized Donetsk and Lugansk and will protect their borders but their stated intent with Ukraine is to "demilitarize" them. If they have any sense they will demolish every military asset they can find and then get out. They will unfortunately probably kill a large number of soldiers and people relevant to their political interests as well. I just hope they can avoid mass civilian casualties.
Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value then the objective is to destabilize Ukraine to the point where they are ineligible to join NATO for a long time. That doesn't bode well for the Ukrainian people.
Why would they get out and let Ukrainians to recover and then continue active military opposition? It takes so much effort and money to even get in. Invasion shows commitment, Russians are going to stay just like Warsaw pact did in Czechoslovakia after 1968. They will attempt to install new puppet government and start draining out Ukraine's economic output.
> They have recognized Donetsk and Lugansk and will protect their borders but their stated intent with Ukraine
Any intent with Donetsk and Lugansk -- such as "protecting their borders"; which "borders", the ones with Ukraine? -- is an intent with Ukraine. Donetsk and Lugansk are "countries" only in the eyes of Russia and Belarus; in the world the rest of us live in, they're parts of Ukraine. (Like Crimea.)
> Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value...
This is Putin‘s excuse but it’s so damned tragic. NATO and the EU have precisely zero interest in preemptively invading Russia and haven’t since 1991, as he well knows—in fact he’s counting on it. All of Russia’s “security” issues are of his own making. This is about fulfilling a dream of reclaiming lost greatness.
> have precisely zero interest in preemptively invading
And yet no single (super)power in the world would accept this assurance and allow adversaries to take positions at their borders. The US didn't allow Russian missiles in Cuba, and most definitely wouldn't allow China to set up base there today despite any assurances that China would never preemptively invade the US.
There may be many reasons behind this war that we'll never know but the one you don't have to guess. It's been tested and proven accurate over our entire history.
Small countries fear invasion. Superpowers know that they're too large to be outright invaded, but are much more concerned that somebody's nukes (or whatever missiles) can reach their capital before their anti-missiles gadgets can intercept them. It's like having a gun to your head. When you attempt to point a gun to a mafia boss' head, they will remove the gun and neutralize you.
This seemed far fetched to me, but I am starting to think this is the only rational strategy behind Western actions... poor Ukrainians, they did not deserve this.
> What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania?
An attack on Moldova is not beyond conceivable. Bulgaria and Romania however are NATO members with US troops stationed there - Russia will not risk WW3 over those countries.
Serbia is a bit far to be invaded without a lot of other things happening before that.
I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.
I don't trust the assumption that there aren't still a large number of hawks in the various governments of NATO that would still love an excuse to try to destroy Russia once and for all. There's probably a >50% chance that once shooting starts between NATO and Russia it doesn't stop until one or the other is incapacitated.
What would make Russian leaders desperate enough to launch a Nuclear strike against the West? Comprehensive embarrassment by NATO and the US flag towering over Red Square seems to be just about the only one that I can think of.
It's more likely that a nuclear exchange would start with limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. Let's imagine that Russia does invade a NATO country and is beaten back by NATO forces after significant fighting within NATO territory. Maybe some of those hawks higher up the chain of command want to make sure Russia can't regroup and try again so they pursue Russian forces into Russia itself in an attempt to encircle them and force a surrender of a significant number of their troops. Russian higher ups misinterpret this as a push to capture Russian territory or the start of a larger invasion and decide to use a small number of low yield nuclear weapons to destroy the invading forces. Now you have thousands of dead NATO soldiers and a mess of confusion with multiple nuclear detonations on the Russian border. NATO counterattacks by targeting airbases and missile assets using cruise missiles and aircraft with conventional warheads in an attempt to prevent any further strikes. At that point things can heat up quickly.
In a hot war where multiple countries are involved you can't expect the fighting to just stop once you hit a border. Even when you have the upper hand, the temptation to carry through once you are already engaged in a conflict is real.
You're assuming both sides remain rational and calm when dead bodies get piling up and the safety protocols for mobilizing nukes get lifted.
Imagine you're the engineer involved with launching a nuke. In times of peace even if you get a phishing call to launch a nuke, you'd have second thoughts and probably take a couple more steps to confirm. In war time, you're already primed for the possibility of the nuke being used and it takes far less for a malicious actor to end the world as we know it.
Same for all levels of decision makers. It really just takes one trigger-happy maniac to make a wrong decision somewhere.
I was specifically responding to throwaway4aday that I do not believe that hawks in NATO that desire the full destruction of Russia will win the argument to pursue an offensive war against Russia.
One reason I think this to be true is exactly the risks that you mentioned - the more hot the war gets, the more bodies, the more likely mistakes are made.
I'd expect lots of Russian targets outside of Russia proper to receive some ballistically-delivered nastygrams if Russia attacked a NATO member. They'd all have to be treated as hostile. Forces in Syria, in Belarus, ships outside Russian waters, et c., would all be at grave risk. Not a great move if they've got a large percentage of their forces outside their own borders (i.e. in Ukraine) when that goes down.
I agree that NATO would be very reluctant to so much as fire an artillery shell over the Russian border, but Russia might well forfeit a great deal of personnel and equipment in such a move, anyway. Having troops & equipment abroad is a major liability if you pick a fight with a country (or coalition) that badly outclasses you.
Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia. As much as we like to think Putin is unhinged or desperate, as much as Putin says a nuclear response could happen, he knows this.
What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?
When you are 70 years old, spending half your life revered as a great leader of a nation, you would be desperate not have your historical legacy ruined by losing a war and possibly your status and pride in your final years.
I'm definitely of the opinion that this would be an unlikely scenario, but then, are you willing to bet the future of the planet on a hunch that a single person that you don't know personally is actually not unhinged and desperate?
I don't know about you, but I'm personally going to avoid betting on anything that has a mere 1% chance of resulting in nuclear winter.
I don't think you can clearly state anything about my imagination based on a handful of comments on the internet.
The scenario that we have been discussing is NATO's response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member such as Estonia. What are NATO's options?
1. Full scale (offensive) war. They attacked us, we will end this in Moscow
2. Repel the attack, take no aggressive action beyond what is required to come to a stalemate
3. Do nothing
I have argued elsewhere with you that I don't see 1. as being at all likely due to NATO's goals, defensive posture, and military superiority.
Doing nothing would only embolden Russia and destroy any pretense of an alliance at all. If not in Estonia, when would NATO intervene? Poland? Germany?
Thus, repel the attack and take no aggressive action. De-escalate and give options for Russia to save face.
We don't have to bet that a single person is not unhinged enough to press the button. There are command and control limitations purpose-built into even Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin also wouldn't want his historical legacy ruined by the thorough destruction of the present and future of Russia. I'd go further to say that he knows all this, and wouldn't invade a NATO member in the first place.
> Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia.
I hope this is not how nuclear strategy and tactics is prepared. If sane people are in charge, retaliations will be proportional and exchange will be limited.
Russia obliterates Katowice, one of several countries obliterates Volgograd. What is the next move? You just ended the lives of a million of your citizens. You just stop there?
It all depends on the situation. Why did they obliterate Katowice in the first place? Was is it an error, was is a retaliation, was it nonsensical move of a madman? Hopefully at some point both sides will realize that neither the other side wants to continue and they would all stop at some point. Like in the movie By dawn's early light.
Serbia is not Russian ally. It strives to join the EU and is neutral in military sense. They declared armed neutrality in 2007 and there was no change since then. They regularly hold exercises with both NATO and Russian Federation.
> It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine?
This is a very good question.
My guess is there will be a period of consolidation (one year, maybe two) and then the next target will be set, either Belarus will be pulled back in or Kaliningrad will be re-connected to the mothership. The fact that it isn't is a serious issue for Russia, they have to cross NATO controlled territory to get to one of their more important bases.
Completely agree with that. Belarus has already joined its armed forces with Russia and they are de facto part of Russia today, even if it is not in a formal way (yet), and exactly the same will happen to Ukraine after the consolidation you mention.
I'm pretty sure also that there will be some consolidation in NATO too. My bet would be on Finland joining formally NATO in the near future. Finland was already invaded by Russia in WW2 during which they managed to seize the Karelia territory of Finland, which is still in Russia today.
But there are other countries which are probably wondering what will happen to them in the next few years: Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia...
So maybe the best asnwer to Russia would be to expand NATO quickly to the ones wanting to join in.
Opinion here has swung significantly pro-NATO in the last week since the above was written.
For instance, I think it's not one but two separate Citizen's Initiatives for joining that have each gathered enough signatures to qualify for debate in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament. (Not that it was all that far below that before this either.)
My assumption is that they will continue the propaganda campaign they've been doing for at least ten years now; they fuel right-wing political parties that have an insular approach, "eurosceptics", an "own people / own country first" mindset.
look at the US: Trump is Putin's buddy, and he pushed the 'America First' tagline.
Look at the UK, they broke away from the EU.
Look at the eastern countries, Poland and Hungary; they have right-leaning governments that broke the rule of law and the separation of legislative branches, which caused them to get sanctioned by the EU, which fuels anti-EU sentiments. And in eastern Europe, anti-EU is pretty much equivalent to pro-Russia.
I haven't heard about it myself, but I'm sure anti-NATO sentiments will increase as well. It's only a matter of time before they get people to leave NATO. Especially if NATO does not come to the defense of a NATO country, they will lose their trustworthiness then.
While I agree that in Eastern Europe anti-EU often means pro-Russia, Poland is a more of an exception here. Poland still has a very negative aftertaste of Russia after WWII.
But if anything, Eastern European countries will cling to NATO more than ever, they most certainly won't leave it.
Just look at the most recent speech of the Czech president, who is generally pro-Russian (the president, not the whole country). In the speech he absolutely condemned Russia's aggression and expressed support to Ukraine. Moreover, he urged to kick Russian Federation out of the SWIFT system as soon as possible.
NATO can easily deny Russia using first strike nuclear attack.
Without centralised command issuing computerised targeting info, it will be for missile officers own initiative to launch them, fully knowing from what they learned in the military academy that an uncoordinated launch will likely be futile.
USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.
Raytheon has never guaranteed anything. GMD tests have been very limited with many failures. And I don't mean that as a criticism of Raytheon or the other defense contractors involved; ballistic missile defense is extremely hard and getting it working at all was an amazing technical accomplishment.
>USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.
Russia has >6000 Nukes. If most were launched and missile defense systems have a 99% success rate that is still 10s of Nuclear strikes on the US Mainland. This would be the end of the US and likely irradiates large parts of North America...
46 R36, 6 with 20MT warheads, 40 with 10 1MT MIRV. 406 warheads total.
36 UR100
162 Topols
The Russian airforce doesn't have serious nukes, the land force don't have megaton scale weapons either.
R36, and UR100 in silos are the only genuine first strike option, everything else is a retaliation weapon. Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory, it's impossible with military C3 beheaded. The surviving military officers in bunkers in far reaches of the country would know that each of them don't have enough forces under their command to continue the war.
