The intermediate-range missile did not carry nuclear weapons, but it is part of a strategic arsenal that is capable of delivering them.

The intermediate-range missile did not carry nuclear weapons, but it is part of a strategic arsenal that is capable of delivering them.

President Vladimir V. Putin escalated a tense showdown with the West on Thursday, saying that Russia had launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine in response to Ukraine’s recent use of American and British weapons to strike deeper into Russia.

In what appeared to be an ominous threat against Ukraine’s western allies, Mr. Putin also asserted that Russia had the right to strike the military facilities of countries “that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”

His warning came hours after Russia’s military fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine that Western officials and analysts said was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West. Though the missile carried only conventional warheads, using it signaled that Russia could strike with nuclear weapons if it chooses.

  • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    2 days ago

    May I suggest you take a moment to consider the scenario from Russia’s perspective.

    1. They have been unable to defeat Ukraine, a single independent nation backed by NATO funding in an all out war. Based on this, their chances of defeating NATO itself in a conventional war are zero.
    2. Their chances of defeating NATO in a nuclear war are even lower. Russia has to distribute its stock of very poorly maintained ICBMs across targets located all across the globe, against an enemy that has demonstrated substantially better early warning and air defense capabilities than they have. Meanwhile every NATO nuke is pointed directly at Russia, and half of those squarely at Moscow.

    Now, both scenarios would be devastating for everyone involved. But the point I’m getting at here is that both scenarios end with Google maps updating to read to “The smoking crater formerly known as Russia”.

    Putin is not a suicide bomber. He’s not doing this out of some ideological devotion to a cause. He’s a thinking human being whose primary goals are to be alive and be in charge of a powerful nation. Starting a war with NATO, even a conventional war, guarantees him losing at least one of those things, and almost certainly both.

    Conversely, the war in Ukraine is not, ultimately, a threat to the survival of Russia, and is only politically a threat to Putin’s personal survival. He can choose to end that war whenever he wants to. It might mean handing back all the Ukrainian territory he’s taken, but there’s no way Ukraine wouldn’t accept that deal in a heartbeat.

    There is no scenario where a war with NATO benefits Putin or the people around him in any way, shape or form, and they absolutely know this.

    On the other hand, threatening war is highly beneficial, because it scares people into behaving irrationally. Threatening nuclear war is especially effective because it draws on decades of cold war anxieties.

    But these threats are hollow. They have no way to follow through on them that doesn’t guarantee their total annihilation. And first and foremost, their goal is to not be annihilated.