I tend to agree that there’s very little that Putin could accomplish in any strictly military sense by going nuclear, which is why I haven’t worried about it too much. But war is ultimately politics by other means, right? Given what I think his political goals are, using a small number, maybe even one, starts to make sense.
Regardless of whether he managed his maximal or minimal territorial goals in Ukraine, NATO needed (and needs) to be dealt with. It wasn’t going to sit there and ignore the situation. Either it collapses after being shown to be an ineffectual paper tiger, or it is neutralized by political or military considerations.
I think escalating to the nuclear level potentially gets him neutralization, albeit not in ideal fashion. I personally don’t believe that escalation would inevitably go to the strategic level, but I suspect (based in part on what some mutuals have said) that a lot of Europeans will become very concentrated on the possibility. Since NATO troops aren’t (yet) directly involved, I think the natural reaction will tend towards “freezing” the conflict.
That’s about as good as Putin can hope for right now. He’d be happy to kick off Cold War 2 with some gains in Ukraine. That lets him crush any remaining domestic opposition while boxing out western cultural and political influence as much as possible.
I think the best counter is a strong commitment to massive (and fast) conventional retaliation, up to and including facilitating Ukrainian advances back into their territory. It might still be worth it to him to be able to say he was beaten by the US, a possibility you note, but ending the war in a far worse position on the ground than Russia started leaves him at risk domestically.
I tend to agree that there’s very little that Putin could accomplish in any strictly military sense by going nuclear, which is why I haven’t worried about it too much. But war is ultimately politics by other means, right? Given what I think his political goals are, using a small number, maybe even one, starts to make sense.
Regardless of whether he managed his maximal or minimal territorial goals in Ukraine, NATO needed (and needs) to be dealt with. It wasn’t going to sit there and ignore the situation. Either it collapses after being shown to be an ineffectual paper tiger, or it is neutralized by political or military considerations.
I think escalating to the nuclear level potentially gets him neutralization, albeit not in ideal fashion. I personally don’t believe that escalation would inevitably go to the strategic level, but I suspect (based in part on what some mutuals have said) that a lot of Europeans will become very concentrated on the possibility. Since NATO troops aren’t (yet) directly involved, I think the natural reaction will tend towards “freezing” the conflict.
That’s about as good as Putin can hope for right now. He’d be happy to kick off Cold War 2 with some gains in Ukraine. That lets him crush any remaining domestic opposition while boxing out western cultural and political influence as much as possible.
I think the best counter is a strong commitment to massive (and fast) conventional retaliation, up to and including facilitating Ukrainian advances back into their territory. It might still be worth it to him to be able to say he was beaten by the US, a possibility you note, but ending the war in a far worse position on the ground than Russia started leaves him at risk domestically.
Excellent post.