bob sterman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:47 am
EACLucifer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:14 am
To reiterate: There is no evidence Russia has changed its nuclear posture.
By "posture" I assume you mean location and status of weapons etc.
Yes, as opposed to doctrine. Their tactical nukes are not stored ready for immediate use, and there hasn't been the slightest move to change this to date.
Nor was there the last time we had a wave of press hysteria on the subject. The current panic seems to be more driven by a) media reports quoting Putin while neglecting the context in which he was speaking and b) media reports about those media reports, and then more about
those reports and so on.
Because Putin's speech mentioned nukes in the context of a western Nuclear attack on Russia.
Because its broader posture has not changed either - i.e. it is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons "in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation."
I've been digging around the different translations of Russian nuclear doctrine, and the wording you use appears to be a translation of their doctrine from 2000. More recently, the standard translation seems to be "aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy". This is talking about first use of tactical nukes - response to nuclear attacks is a separate issue.
That said, it's not particularly useful to try and analyse the exact wording of translations. If anyone here has Russian good enough to understand the written doctrine in context, I'd greatly appreciate their input.
And it is about to expand the definition of "Russian Federation" to include territory that is part of Ukraine - and Ukrainian forces are going to attempt to retake that territory using NATO supplied weapons.
Yes Russia are using their nuclear doctrine and threats to attempt to coerce the Ukraine / the west into backing down on these regions. But if backed into a corner it is not safe to assume that Russia won't do exactly what its doctrine has said it will do for many years.
I'm not saying it is safe - in the absolute sense of the word - but we aren't dealing with a scenario where there is any safe option. The question is whether or not it is safer to reward the Russians rhetoric about nukes and thus encourage them to keep doing it and encourage every other nuclear state to act the same way and non-nuclear states to go nuclear so they can act that way, or to call what is very likely a bluff and continue to arm Ukraine with conventional weapons, while not disregarding the threat of escalation.
And I say rhetoric for a reason, for while the Russian press, Medvedev and sometimes Putin like to sabre-rattle, the posture of their nuclear forces hasn't changed, just like they didn't actually change their behaviour at all when Putin talked about putting nuclear forces on alert much earlier in the war.
If Putin had any intention of using nukes to settle things any time soon, it is very unlikely he'd have taken the politically dangerous step of mobilising hundreds of thousands of Russians, and thus sparking unrest in several areas.
It is correct that the west should remain very alert. It is correct that they should reinforce the idea of dreadful consequences for Putin and Russia if they go nuclear. But there is absolutely no reason to panic, and media outlets breathlessly reporting on each other's reporting to amplify panic and get those sweet page views are not helping the situation here.