There's something rotten in Putinistan...


On 25 February, the day after the Russian invasion, the deputy director of Gazprom, Alexander Tyulyakov, was found hanged in the garage of his home near St. Petersburg.

On February 28, Ukrainian-born Russian oil and gas tycoon Mikhail Watford was found dead at his home in Surrey, UK, "in unexplained circumstances".

On March 24, billionaire Vasily Melnikov —who reportedly worked for the medical firm MedStom—was reported dead in the bathroom of his apartment in Nizhny Novgorod, along with his wife and two sons, all stabbed to death.

On April 18, the former vice president of Gazprombank, Vladislav Avaev, was found dead in his apartment in Moscow, along with his wife and daughter. The apartment was locked from the inside and a pistol was found in Avaev's hands.

On April 19, Sergey Protosenya, former vice president of gas giant Novatek, was found hanged in the garden of his villa in Lloret del Mar. His wife and daughter were found in their bed, their bodies covered with stab wounds.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that. — Olivier5

Lavrov is now threatening the world with a third world war involving nukes and he's blaming Ukraine for it :lol:

Russia has nothing left but this. It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. When they realize the world is laughing at their pathetic army and pathetic attempts at fooling anyone but the hardcore Putiners in Russia and internationally with their propaganda, they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country.

If "the only feasible retaliation available to Russia" is using tactical nuclear weapons then Putin should use them as soon as possible. — neomac

Well, this maybe why Russia denies the sinking of the flagship and the recent industrial fires are caused by Ukraine.

For, the only escalation response available would be tactical Nuclear weapons.

However, there can be plenty of political reasons not to use nuclear weapons at this point. In particular if the Kremlin predicts they'll win in Dombass and also avert more boats sinking and industrial fires and that the whole thing will blow over and things will return to some kind of normal.

However, if there are a series of attacks in Russia that normal Russian people find unacceptable and are a like "WTF Kremlin, what are you going to do about that", and all conventional weapons are already being used, then nukes are the only retaliation available.

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies.

Moscow and Saint Petersburg would get nuked in return. You don't want that. — Olivier5

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange.

NATO would be "mad" about it, but if NATO and EU have already done all they can do in terms of sanctions and weapons (now being blown up by Nukes), and further sanctions on energy would hurt the EU more than it hurts Russia, then the US maybe happy with the result as well, and escalation would stop simply because we arrived at the end of escalation road and the next step would be off the cliff into oblivion. The world would simply have to accept that Russia drops nukes now, it would get normalised over time, and the main consequence would be everyone rushes to get or make nuclear weapons (except around Russia because you get nuked if you do; hence, it may end up being a be a bigger problem for NATO anyways).

Russia has nothing left but this. — Christoffer

Currently Russia is making gains in Dombass, so we'll see the result there.

They have also already taken Kherson, the canal to Crimea, taken Mariupol except a few hold outs, destroyed Azov brigade, made their land bridge, and degraded Ukraines war industry and war fighting infrastructure and skills and knowledge.

If they succeed in current operation they may view the above as sufficient military achievement.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point.

If a stalemate emerges in the current situation of failing to close the cauldron, it's unclear if that failure would overwhelm the achievements so far. Kremlin may simply accept a stalemate at this point as achieving "enough". Which could be incredibly unstable or then slowly transition into a sort of South-North Korea situation. For a lot of reasons, instability seems a better bet.

It's clear that the invasion is a massive failure so they will try and do anything to show Russian might and power again. — Christoffer

Agreed. If the Nuclear weapons are used by Russia it would be a show of might and power and most rational people will be afraid of that.

they either have the choice of nuking everyone or live in shame. — Christoffer

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO.

But nuking everyone will make them the worst people in the history of mankind so they have little choice but to live in shame. — Christoffer

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers.

Russia is rapidly becoming a real dumpster fire of a nation, where no one will want to live, work, or be associated with. That legacy will haunt Putin and his minions until someone breaks it to reform the country. — Christoffer

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it").

There is no prospect of World War III, Russia’s army is in chaos, ill equipped and poorly trained. Largely a spent force. — Punshhh

If this is true, then nuclear weapons are the next step. Why would Russia just call it quits?

If it's not true, and Russia unambiguously defeats Ukraine in the Easter theatre and Ukraine can't take back Kherson is where risk of Russian using nuclear weapons is low.

I agree that even if Russia does use nuclear weapons the risk of WWIII is low, at least in the form of mutually assured destruction being implemented.

However, lot's of chaotic scenarios we may decide to call WWIII even if ICBM's aren't used and only a few choice tactical nukes here and there. For example China may decide to invade Taiwan and other wars may erupt due to food shortages and general discombobulation of the international system.

The phrasing is "shouldn't be underestimated". It's simply true. We shouldn't underestimate war leading to more war.

The Western media projects an image of NATO basically in control of the situation and knowing what they're doing.

This may simply turn out not to be true.

In basic risk analysis you multiple the risk by the impact to get a factor for comparison. Even if WWIII is low probability, it is very high impact, and so easily of greater concern than a lot of other dangers.

The Putin apologists are proving unhinged. — Punshhh

The issue of nuclear weapons being used has already been discussed at length. All those reasons and scenarios have not gone away and may have actually increased even if Johny Depp now dominates the news cycle and the Western media has a new toy ... the old toys of gasoline and firecrackers haven't been put away.

Noting that tactical nuclear weapons are optimum military strategy is not controversial. In military terms, if you have a bigger bomb than the opposing side it's an advantage. The reasons to not use nuclear weapons are political and not military.

All your reasoning (if true, that Russia is weak in conventional forces) simply supports the conclusion they may use nuclear weapons, that they would have nothing else to lose.

So, I'm not sure if you're even disagreeing with my point, or just disapproving of the use of nuclear weapons.

I also disapprove.

One could argue pouring in debt and conventional weapons into Ukraine to the point that Russia uses nuclear weapons would be for the glory of Ukraine, and a worthy sacrifice to demonstrate just how "shameful" the Russians are. If one wants definitive proof that "Putin be bad" then I see how that logic works.

Unlikely.

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange. — boethius

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state. And NATO does not even need to launch. All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine.

There's something rotten in the Putinistan kingdom... — Olivier5

Yes. One or even two of these kind of events could totally happen at these stressing times. But this many seems like a return to the Stalinist times. Also Putin's personal intelligence service raiding the FSB headquarters tells that all really isn't well in Putinistan. One should simply dismiss people, not have your own guys raiding a HQ of your intel service.

Lavrov literally said: "Nuclear war is unacceptable, this is Moscow's principled position ... I would very much not like that now, when the risks [of nuclear war] are really very, very significant, I would very much not like these risks to be artificially inflated, and there are many who want them. The danger is serious, it is real, it cannot be underestimated”.

And the Western media reported that he said: "the risks [of nuclear war] are really very, very significant."

Utterly hilarious.

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit.

I would read it as a veiled threat. We talking about apophasis the other day, to say something by pretending not to sy it. This is an example. 'Nice world you have, shame if something happened to it'.

But of course you would. A Russian official could say "We will never use nuclear weapons ever", and you would read it as a veiled threat. You may not even be wrong, but I think any alternative reading is a priori foreclosed to you from the beginning.

In any case the omission of context from Western media and it's regurgitation by those here is yet another instance of propaganda in operation.

In any case, the Americans seem to have realised that Putin might be utterly beaten in Ukraine. Early May was Putin’s deadline, in time for V day, or whatever it is called there. Instead that will be about the time that the Western banks declare they won’t accept repayments in rubles, and the four-hour queues for sausage will once again become reality for the vast majority of Russians.

of course Lavrov is trading in threats. That is the only language he has.

The rationale would be to get rid of a nuclear terrorist state. — Olivier5

Worthy goal.

And NATO does not even need to launch. — Olivier5

Lot's of reasons why it would be necessary for NATO to launch to "get rid" of Russia.

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine. — Olivier5

Fantasy.

It's fun how when you push even the slightest bit, these people don't give one itoa of a shit about Ukraine, but only about defeating the Big Bad that is Russia. If it takes a couple of cities' worth of dead Ukrainians to do it, so be it.

It may of course be the case that Lavrov is full of shit but the people who unhesitatingly regurgitate Western propaganda as per the above are verifiably full of shit. — StreetlightX

Whatever else people want to say about Lavrov, Putin or the Kremlin, it seems pretty clear that the risk of nuclear war is far higher than before the crisis.

And it's pretty easy to argue that any increase in the risk of nuclear war is unacceptable.

The statements are simply true about the risks.

What people can take issue with is the part where Lavrov expresses those risks are unacceptable; i.e. his normative rather than factual parts of his statement.

Lavrov and the Kremlin may want nuclear escalation at this point for all we know ... which, if true, makes the statement about the risks being significant far higher and even "more factual". But, whatever the Kremlin wants, the risks are obviously higher now than before the war.

Of course, it wouldn't work for propaganda purposes since if the Western media accused Lavrov of being disingenuous and actually wanting the situation to escalate to nuclear weapons ... then the followup question is why is NATO playing into Russia's hand?

Russia using nuclear weapons against a non-NATO country would be a big escalation but probability is pretty low it would lead to a strategic nuclear exchange. There is no rational for striking Russian and risk strategic exchange. — boethius

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes?

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would be the price of using nukes?

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot.

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them.

After the war, Iraq—pressured to own up to the attacks—acknowledged that it had "consumed" 1800 tons of mustard, 600 tons of sarin, and 140 tons of tabun. All told, according to Iran's Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs (FMVA), the chemical onslaught killed nearly 5000 Iranians and sickened more than 100,000. That doesn't include Iraqi victims: In March 1988, Iraq's forces attacked its own citizens with mustard and nerve agents in Halabja, killing as many as 5000 and wounding 7000.

Sulfur mustard, a family of compounds first used in World War I, left the deepest and most visible scars on survivors of the war. Three decades later, about 56,000 Iranians are coping with lingering health effects from the blistering agent, ranging from skin lesions and failing corneas to chronic obstructive lung disease and possibly cancer, says Tooba Ghazanfari, an immunologist at Shahed University here.

In any case, the Americans seem to have realised that Putin might be utterly beaten in Ukraine. Early May was Putin’s deadline, in time for V day, or whatever it is called there. Instead that will be about the time that the Western banks declare they won’t accept repayments in rubles, and the four-hour queues for sausage will once again become reality for the vast reality of Russians. — Wayfarer

Or then the war can continue. Putin might simply admit that it's a war. Of course he will portray it in a way that Russia is fighting a war with NATO, but anyway. The weapons assistance to Ukraine is large at least.

It may all fall to the trap of WW1 where making peace in 1915, 1916 or 1917 was off the table as so many lives had been lost actually in the first months. After hundreds of thousands had already perished, it's not easy just to call the thing off without any gains. For Putin it seemed one missile cruiser was humiliating enough for him to not to go further with peace talks.

Now, just because it would be the only retaliation available simply because all conventional weapons are pretty much already engaged, doesn't mean they would use them.

Putin could be "the bigger man" and explain later that nukes were on the table but he decided not to use them. — boethius

Why not? As you said, Putin has figured all out, already. He will win anyways. And his people will support any leader who proves how powerful Russia is. Besides the Ukrainians are Nazis, America bombed Japan with strategic nukes even if there was no existential threat to America, why shouldn’t Russia be able to justify an attack with tactical nukes against a Nazi government committing genocides against Russians, threatening to use chemical weapons against Russians, with the support of corrupt and blood thirsty capitalist imperialists?! Is Putin too stupid or too coward? Because either way the Westerners will profit from his stupidity and cowardice and continue the war precisely because Putin refuses to escalate.

... Or ... or, the Kremlin is looking for the context to emerge where using nuclear weapons makes sense to the ordinary Russian and key allies. — boethius

Oh I see, so you are saying that Kremlin is waiting for the green light from China and India to fire tactical nukes? Why? Why does Putin need to wait if he will win anyways and why would his allies not support him if his victory will definitely show to the world how US and NATO are powerless?

then the war can continue.. — ssu

With what resources? Presumably, if one wins a war, one can then lay claim to the spoils. Oil, wheat, all the minerals and resources that Ukraine has to offer. But what if there is no victory? Can Russia continue to engage in this campaign of wanton destruction and mass killing indefinitely while making no actual gains? Wars are not simply media opportunities, some party actually has to win. And since day 1, Putin has not been winning, and he’s still not winning. When are Russian tractors going to be tilling those wheat fields and Russian companies running those oil wells? That is what ‘victory’ would look like, and we’re not seeing anything remotely resembling it.

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks. They even had the press releases drafted. That is the fantasy he had which all the sycophants around him echoed. But he’s been mugged by reality.

All it needs to do is donate a few missiles to Ukraine.
— Olivier5

Fantasy. — boethius

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers.

If the Russians nuke Kyiv, you can bet the Ukrainians are going to nuke Moscow.

With what resources? — Wayfarer

War can continue just like WW1 continued: by stalemate and falling back to defensive positions. Russia can always choose to cease the attacks and go on the defensive. Then look at the next go let's say in the summer or in the fall. That might not what Putin wants, but wars have their own way of going.

"Luckily" it seems that Putin has made the mistake of simply throwing the forces from the Kyiv front directly into battle in the Donbas. Likely better would have to be two reorganize them, resupply them which would have meant that it would have taken at least a month.

If the Russian nuke Kyiv, you can bet the Ukrainians are going to nuke Moscow. — Olivier5

I'm not so sure about that. There are limits on just what weapons the US will give to Ukraine.

There are limits on just what weapons the US will give to Ukraine. — ssu

They would support retaliation, I think, if it comes to that. And the US is not the only player. Europe cannot tolerate a nuclear terrorist state at its doorstep. Ukraine also has the capacity to build their own nukes, given a year or two.

They would support retaliation, I think, if it comes to that. But the US is not the only player. Europe cannot tolerate a nuclear terrorist state at its doorstep. Ukraine also has the capacity to build their own nukes, given a year or two.
4m — Olivier5

What sort of fantasy land are you living in where countries can just be given nuclear weapons, or develop their own while their country is being destroyed?

Ukraine is being destroyed? In which version of reality is that happening? The Vladimir Chronicles?

Ukraine is being destroyed? — Olivier5

Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

Russia has a lot to lose if it uses nukes against Ukraine. First, what would actually Russia achieve with using tactical nukes? — ssu

In the current situation, I agree with your evaluation, why I mention some further escalation as the trigger, from Ukraine or from NATO and/or both.

However, to understand the rational for using nuclear weapons, one needs to explore what happens if the premises of your current argument changes. As I mention, things only "seem stable" because we have gotten accustomed to the carnage, but the situation may be far from stable in terms of all sorts of variables we cannot currently see.

Assuming if there would be a large Ukrainian formation nicely packed up, then tactical nuclear weapon could take out of action one Ukrainian formation. — ssu

This is still pretty convenient in terms of military tactics to simply "take out" a Ukrainian formation. However, there's also fortified bases and bunkers that cannot easily be completely obliterated by conventional means.

A concentrated use of let's say strategic bombers with conventional weapons would come close to a similar strike, but wouldn't actually create any outcry. — ssu

I'm not sure if NATO and the EU can escalate the current "outcry", for one, and the Kremlin may simply no longer care what NATO and the EU do or say if the context develops in which using nuclear weapons has more pros than cons.

The simple way to counter the use of nukes is to spread your forces and not have large formations, large airfields or concentrations that would be optimal for nuclear weapons. Or then Putin could attack civilian targets and get some Ukrainian city to be remembered similarly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — ssu

This is not simple.

I doubt civilian targets would be targeted, although civilians would certainly die as well.

For starters, if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, I doubt that China, India or South Africa among others will be as if nothing has happened and openly do business with Russia. Let's just remember that there are countries that are willing to buy that Russian gas and oil. Especially for China to back the use of nukes against a non-nuclear state would be a tough spot. — ssu

These are the main political reasons against using nuclear weapons. However, the world view and political response of Russia's remaining partners is not so easily predictable. But China and India (governing elites) may have now, or then it develops in the future, some reason to either accept Russia using tactical nuclear weapons (sets the precedent that they can too).

The world also doesn't solely run on social media judgements. Russia has resources countries need and it's easy to rationalise buying what you need from the cheapest source.

Do we not too wear Nikes?

(or some equivalent symbol of questionable fabrication practices that make our sneakers cheaper than they otherwise would be?)

And Ok, if you do use one or two tactical nukes, what if Ukraine doesn't budge? What if Zelensky is the real McCoy continues fighting and doesn't throw in the towel? Iranians didn't throw in the towel when Iraq used chemical weapons against them. — ssu

The anti-Russian rhetoric should maybe taken more seriously.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true.

If Putin is evil, literally Hitler, already committing genocide, and the risk of a strategic response from NATO is very low, then I honestly don't see why Putin wouldn't use nuclear weapons? Definitely seems to me like an evil thing to do.

In our discussions I believe we both agree the situation is more nuanced, but the rhetoric on this point could be true. We don't really know what Putin and the Kremlin wants or how he'd react in this or that situation.

I word it "breaking the ice" on the use of nuclear weapons due to the wider contextual consequences, not because it would immediately win the war in Ukraine.

In terms of military tactics in Ukraine, it is possible that Ukraine can withstand one or two tactical nukes as you describe, but it would certainly result in a stalemate as spreading your forces out essentially rules out any concentrated offensive, and formation that concentrates for a breakthrough manoeuvre just gets nuked.

Six months ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get Javelins. Now they have thousands. And one month ago, it was a fantasy that Ukraine would ever get heavy artillery from NATO. Now the Canadians and US are giving them dozens of M777 Howitzers. — Olivier5

It wasn't fantasy.

Ukraine was already being armed and trained by NATO for their war in the Dombass.

The precedent of waging proxy war with conventional weapons goes way back, there's nothing particular unusual in the situation.

NATO giving Ukraine nuclear weapons to strike Russia is pure fantasy and Russia is unlikely to accept this "aha, technically we only 'loaned' some nukes to Ukraine, no string attached as nuclear powers are want to do, so, gotcha, you can't nuke us back".

All NATO would be achieving by giving a couple of nukes to their friends in Ukraine to casually nuke Moscow and Saint Petersburg, would be to risk strategic nuclear response without even the benefit of a nuclear first strike.

Ukraine is being destroyed? — Olivier5

?

Are you ok?

Putin’s plan was the Ukrainian army would fold and Russia would install a puppet regime in days or st most weeks. — Wayfarer

This was certainly plan A and the preferred result was either collapse of the Ukrainian regime or then accepting the peace terms on offer.

But considering they took their positions in south of Ukraine in a matter of days and "denazified" the Azov brigade all the to a few starting holdouts in Azovstal, it seems non-credible to say the Kremlin, or then at least the Russian generals, had a plan B.

Also, the whole analysis that Russia expected Ukraine to collapse completely ignores the last 8 years, the size of Ukraine, and the US and NATO support to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been waging a fanatical war against the Dombass breakaway regions for 8 years, training up with NATO, getting fighting experience, and developing further a fanatical war fighting ideology (NAZI or otherwise), and any competent military analyst would view a total war response by Ukraine as one obvious potential outcome as well as NATO escalating sanctions and flooding arms into Ukraine.

What is unknown is how probable the Kremlin viewed the current total war scenario.

What is equally unknown is the extent the Kremlin actually wanted to bait Ukraine into a total war scenario to obliterate their long term war fighting infrastructure, make the point of walking up to the biggest and baddest country in the region and punch them in the face, while also raising commodity prices.

Good post, I agree with much of it. :up:

There is no precedent for it, that is true. But there is also no precedent to use tactical nukes. If Russia uses them, it will create a precedent, which others will follow. And the first one following will be Ukraine.

Putin can't casually drop nukes over Ukraine and expect no retaliation to happen. That's I suspect why he doesn't drop them, and will IMO never drop them. He knows there would be consequences, and he is not the suicidal type.