Randahl Fink

Every time someone fights Russia, the Kremlin threatens to use nuclear weapons.

But even when multiple rebel forces toppled the Syrian regime, thereby bringing an end to important Russian bases, Putin did not go nuclear.

Would it have been safer for Putin to use nuclear weapons against the rebel forces in Syria rather than a NATO country? Absolutely.

Did Putin dare to do it? Absolutely not.

The sooner we realize, the bear has no teeth, the sooner we can send Putin’s stooges back to Moscow.

Dec 11, 2024 at 5:55amIvory for iOS
Show threadsortiusDec 11, 2024

@randahl some would argue that Tartus was Russia's most important naval base anywhere. Their only unobstructed warm water port.

If they're not willing to defend that with nukes, it does put all the sabre rattling into context

Show threadBenAvelingDec 11, 2024
@sortius @randahl AFAICT, it’s not even clear if Putin still has nukes. They’re expensive things to maintain, and corruption makes that all so much more complicated.
Show threadThe Animal and the MachineDec 11, 2024
@randahl
Putin plays in the grey areas. The most likely place he would use a nuke is in #Kursk as a test in sovereign territory. The response to this however is a likely active engagement by NATO forces on #Ukraine sovereign territory. Putin would likely lose the war quickly.
Show threadMartin Vermeer 86 47Dec 11, 2024
@randahl Also, he could do so precisely once. After that, all potential victims of Russian aggression - and *their* potential victims, or even neighbors they have tense relations with - will scramble to acquire nukes and minimally capable delivery systems. It would be the end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and make the world a lot less safe also for Russia. And believe me, they know it.