Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time ) if Sweden and Finland joins to NATO. Russia might go very far to prevent that.
There is a little seed of truth in their security claims, that Ukraine should stay neutral.
Missiles around country in close positions means, that West has better likelihood to win nuclear war with first strike, eliminating the most nukes from Russia. Especially, since they think that US is the enemy. And they want to hit US which is very far.
Russia loses their nuclear threat advantage, if other countries can position their missiles better, to reach far better damage with first strike.
This is the core of Cuban crisis, and why there are so many bombs, in submarines as well. Russia needs to believe that there is a balance.
> Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war
Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know.
It's all just a game of chicken. And for Russia to win they would have to go all in 100 times in a row. Whereas NATO wins if nothing changes.
So they won't go all in. It's just a matter of NATO deciding where the final line on sand is. I think we're witnessing it being drawn and Putin mistakenly thought he can do a few more steps.
> Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know.
They need at least a little illusion that there is at least balance. This is about Putin’s power and their narrative. All decisions are based on the fact that Putin will stay in power and looks strong leader.
> Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time )
Could you elaborate on that?
NATO will not strike first. I understand you can respond to ICBMs but there's very little you can do to protect your cites against them. So what do you mean by "losing nuclear war"? Even if 10% of Soviet nuclear equipment still works, that still means hundreds of nukes. The only "winners"* would be China, South America and Africa, not Russia.
> NATO will not strike first. I understand you can respond to ICBMs but there's very little you can do to protect your cites against them.
It does not matter from Russian perspective. Anyway, cities are just third priority. Opponent’s nukes and command centers are the fist priority.
If you can place enough nukes close enough, so that response time is very low, then first strike might paralyze nation and there is no response at all.
Russia needs to consider this, regardless of narrative who strikes first.
There is no 'winning' a nuclear war, once it starts everyone loses. Retaliation from either side will be immediate because no one knows what will be left once the other sides nukes land. The submarines are not going to be asked to wait and see if enemy nukes make it.
What would that accomplish? Fins would just join NATO even faster.