According to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, China has now warned Russia, in what he described as “ultimatum form,” that Moscow cannot even consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
I would propose a different scenario: The USA pretends to be "surprised and completely taken off guard" by Russia using a nuclear waepon... then says "Whelp, guess the taboo isn't there anymore" and decides to use a nuclear weapon against Iranian nuclear sites they can't get to otherwise.
The scary part of your comments about the US using a Russian nuclear weapon as an excuse to do the same in Iran, has a twisted logic to it.
Let's face it, there is no way the US is going to commit ground troops in Iran because without a general mobilisation ( wouldn't it be fun to see them try and make that happen:) they couldn't conquer Iran let alone hold it so what's left in the options cupboard?
More of the same whilst Iran retaliates hitting US Allies in the region who are already screaming blue murder at Trump plus they are burning through munitions they can't replace. Logically, what options does that leave?
Give up? Politically impossible for Trump so what about a tactical nuclear weapon so Trump can say, there is no way they will ever have a nuclear bomb now, say job done, recall the fleet and tell the rest of the world that now he's saved the world from Iran they can sort there own shit out to unblock the Strait.
At least in Trump's first term, he dad a Sec. Def. and generals opposing his use of nukes. Now with Heggseth and his forcing out of so many generals, I'm not so sure how much opposition there would be. Iran's military planning and resources, however, seem quite dispersed and I don't see a viable target except for the psychological and actual horror of using a weapon on Tehran
Absolutely what I've been thinking. Trump has already wondered aloud why we have nukes if we don't use them. Will anyone in DC or the Pentagon stop Trump?
Putin doesn't care what happens to 8 billion people if he fails.
This is an excellent and well informed post - thank you Wes..
A few points come to mind:
I assumed from the first months of this Russian attack on Ukraine that if or when Ukraine thwarted Putin's plans, he would use a single nuclear warhead to decapitate the Kyiv government, especially take out Zelenskyy. That didn't happen and perhaps that was also Putin's last best chance of deploying a nuclear strike with little chance of comeback, either from a disorganised Europe of from a hands-off America.
I have been waiting for evidence of this pivot by Xi Jinping for a while, essential if China is to remain an acceptable partner to the West and its markets. Now that Putin is failing and Russia may disintegrate, I expect China to reposition itself as a 'Western partner 'in Russia's transition to a post-Putin state or states. If that means Russian break up, then China will want to hold eastern Russian territory and access to its resources, particularly oil and gas.
Also China holds substantial Russian debts, notably in forward contracts for gas and oil, apparently with the loans underwritten against energy company assets. China will want those contracts honoured, perhaps with ownership or shareholdings in those companies after break-up. It would be difficult to make that case if it continues to back Putin through Russia's collapse.
Regarding China's warning to Putin not to use nuclear, perhaps its real targets are the Generals and oligarchs around Putin that intend to survive and hope to thrive after Putin has gone. If they are to have any chance to rebuild the Russian economy, then they cannot allow Putin to launch a nuclear strike on Ukraine or Europe or NATO.
As America and, it seems, China, and doubtless Europe and Ukraine, are all watching carefully for any signs of Putin ordering preparation for a nuclear attack, it strikes me that Russia's systems were designed for very different war conditions and may no longer work. With satellite surveillance, insider information and compromised Russian communications, Ukraine can be warned of movements of warheads and could quickly attack the transportation with missiles and drones. Yes, it would mean nuclear fallout, but it would be in Russia and can be blamed on Putin and his Generals. Even the risk of that happening, and the loss of face for Putin, may be enough to stop it happening.
In short, it seems to me that Putin missed a chance to use nuclear in the early days of the war, when the West wouldn't have dared to respond, and has missed his chance again perhaps last December or January, before Ukraine took the offensive deep into Russia.
One last point. There is no reason now why Zelenskyy would agree a peace deal. Russia would use even a ceasefire to rearm, will never concede its former territorial claims, and the war will start over again, whether Putin or some other general is in power. Europe must fully commit to helping Ukraine demolish the Russian economy, and ideally cause the break up of Russia so its internal struggles will turn it away from future wars with Europe.
To that end, it would be an advantage for Europe to agree for China to help dismantle Russian nuclear arsenal and, in return, allow China to reclaim its former territories in the east.
Whatever the future world looks like, it is obvious that America is in decline and China is ascendant, and Europe needs to partner the winners, not sink with the losers. Sadly, the main current and future threats to Europe are from America. Right now, Europe is entering a winter of gas and diesel shortages, fertiliser and food shortages, and potentially a flood of refugees from the Middle East (when the desalination plants are attacked), all due to Trump's stupid war on Iran for Israel and the closure of Hormuz.
Europe may need all the friends it can get if it is to defend itself from Trump and his successors.
"I’m a defense journalist, Army and Air Force veteran..." Okay, but who taught you snarky, clever commentary? "Russian television host shouting about radioactive ash while sitting underneath enough studio makeup to survive the initial flash." "before the Kremlin could manufacture a story about Ukrainian Nazis, British laboratories, or genetically modified combat badgers." Amidst all the informed analysis and careful framing of the current situation, you're having too much fun. (I'll be you drove your high school English teacher nuts.) Keep it all going, Wes.
"A tactical nuclear weapon would not repair Russia’s economy, replace its casualties, hold a trench, rebuild the Black Sea Fleet, or stop Ukrainian drones from finding another oil refinery.
Ukraine’s forces are dispersed across a wide battlefield. There may be few military targets concentrated enough to justify the enormous political cost of nuclear use. Russia could destroy one position and create a worldwide crisis without solving the operational problem that drove Putin to consider the weapon in the first place.
There is no radioactive cure for Kremlin incompetence."
An excellent comment! The logic is impeccable and undeniable! Unfortunately it doesn't guarantee that as Putin continues to get backed into a corner, he will not lash out!
Russia is totally dependent on China. China is all about the long perspective. And they have used it well. (BRI has faced some backlash but that does not change the strategy.) I have long advocated that China has told Russia in no uncertain terms that nuclear is an absolute nono. That should have been clear to anyone for a very long time now. Any country using nuke will be a pariah shunned by everyone overnight. Unlike Hitler Putin has a wolf pack waiting to replace him. So a Nero moment á la Hitler's will be the moment Putin will be taken down by his own.
I would propose a different scenario: The USA pretends to be "surprised and completely taken off guard" by Russia using a nuclear waepon... then says "Whelp, guess the taboo isn't there anymore" and decides to use a nuclear weapon against Iranian nuclear sites they can't get to otherwise.
Entirely plausible, unfortunately
The scary part of your comments about the US using a Russian nuclear weapon as an excuse to do the same in Iran, has a twisted logic to it.
Let's face it, there is no way the US is going to commit ground troops in Iran because without a general mobilisation ( wouldn't it be fun to see them try and make that happen:) they couldn't conquer Iran let alone hold it so what's left in the options cupboard?
More of the same whilst Iran retaliates hitting US Allies in the region who are already screaming blue murder at Trump plus they are burning through munitions they can't replace. Logically, what options does that leave?
Give up? Politically impossible for Trump so what about a tactical nuclear weapon so Trump can say, there is no way they will ever have a nuclear bomb now, say job done, recall the fleet and tell the rest of the world that now he's saved the world from Iran they can sort there own shit out to unblock the Strait.
Scary isn't it?
At least in Trump's first term, he dad a Sec. Def. and generals opposing his use of nukes. Now with Heggseth and his forcing out of so many generals, I'm not so sure how much opposition there would be. Iran's military planning and resources, however, seem quite dispersed and I don't see a viable target except for the psychological and actual horror of using a weapon on Tehran
Absolutely what I've been thinking. Trump has already wondered aloud why we have nukes if we don't use them. Will anyone in DC or the Pentagon stop Trump?
Putin doesn't care what happens to 8 billion people if he fails.
The Asian continent is sitting on a precarious fault line. Any fallout will go right
This is an excellent and well informed post - thank you Wes..
A few points come to mind:
I assumed from the first months of this Russian attack on Ukraine that if or when Ukraine thwarted Putin's plans, he would use a single nuclear warhead to decapitate the Kyiv government, especially take out Zelenskyy. That didn't happen and perhaps that was also Putin's last best chance of deploying a nuclear strike with little chance of comeback, either from a disorganised Europe of from a hands-off America.
I have been waiting for evidence of this pivot by Xi Jinping for a while, essential if China is to remain an acceptable partner to the West and its markets. Now that Putin is failing and Russia may disintegrate, I expect China to reposition itself as a 'Western partner 'in Russia's transition to a post-Putin state or states. If that means Russian break up, then China will want to hold eastern Russian territory and access to its resources, particularly oil and gas.
Also China holds substantial Russian debts, notably in forward contracts for gas and oil, apparently with the loans underwritten against energy company assets. China will want those contracts honoured, perhaps with ownership or shareholdings in those companies after break-up. It would be difficult to make that case if it continues to back Putin through Russia's collapse.
Regarding China's warning to Putin not to use nuclear, perhaps its real targets are the Generals and oligarchs around Putin that intend to survive and hope to thrive after Putin has gone. If they are to have any chance to rebuild the Russian economy, then they cannot allow Putin to launch a nuclear strike on Ukraine or Europe or NATO.
As America and, it seems, China, and doubtless Europe and Ukraine, are all watching carefully for any signs of Putin ordering preparation for a nuclear attack, it strikes me that Russia's systems were designed for very different war conditions and may no longer work. With satellite surveillance, insider information and compromised Russian communications, Ukraine can be warned of movements of warheads and could quickly attack the transportation with missiles and drones. Yes, it would mean nuclear fallout, but it would be in Russia and can be blamed on Putin and his Generals. Even the risk of that happening, and the loss of face for Putin, may be enough to stop it happening.
In short, it seems to me that Putin missed a chance to use nuclear in the early days of the war, when the West wouldn't have dared to respond, and has missed his chance again perhaps last December or January, before Ukraine took the offensive deep into Russia.
One last point. There is no reason now why Zelenskyy would agree a peace deal. Russia would use even a ceasefire to rearm, will never concede its former territorial claims, and the war will start over again, whether Putin or some other general is in power. Europe must fully commit to helping Ukraine demolish the Russian economy, and ideally cause the break up of Russia so its internal struggles will turn it away from future wars with Europe.
To that end, it would be an advantage for Europe to agree for China to help dismantle Russian nuclear arsenal and, in return, allow China to reclaim its former territories in the east.
Whatever the future world looks like, it is obvious that America is in decline and China is ascendant, and Europe needs to partner the winners, not sink with the losers. Sadly, the main current and future threats to Europe are from America. Right now, Europe is entering a winter of gas and diesel shortages, fertiliser and food shortages, and potentially a flood of refugees from the Middle East (when the desalination plants are attacked), all due to Trump's stupid war on Iran for Israel and the closure of Hormuz.
Europe may need all the friends it can get if it is to defend itself from Trump and his successors.
"I’m a defense journalist, Army and Air Force veteran..." Okay, but who taught you snarky, clever commentary? "Russian television host shouting about radioactive ash while sitting underneath enough studio makeup to survive the initial flash." "before the Kremlin could manufacture a story about Ukrainian Nazis, British laboratories, or genetically modified combat badgers." Amidst all the informed analysis and careful framing of the current situation, you're having too much fun. (I'll be you drove your high school English teacher nuts.) Keep it all going, Wes.
"A tactical nuclear weapon would not repair Russia’s economy, replace its casualties, hold a trench, rebuild the Black Sea Fleet, or stop Ukrainian drones from finding another oil refinery.
Ukraine’s forces are dispersed across a wide battlefield. There may be few military targets concentrated enough to justify the enormous political cost of nuclear use. Russia could destroy one position and create a worldwide crisis without solving the operational problem that drove Putin to consider the weapon in the first place.
There is no radioactive cure for Kremlin incompetence."
An excellent comment! The logic is impeccable and undeniable! Unfortunately it doesn't guarantee that as Putin continues to get backed into a corner, he will not lash out!
Thank you Wes ! Excellent Post!
Russia is totally dependent on China. China is all about the long perspective. And they have used it well. (BRI has faced some backlash but that does not change the strategy.) I have long advocated that China has told Russia in no uncertain terms that nuclear is an absolute nono. That should have been clear to anyone for a very long time now. Any country using nuke will be a pariah shunned by everyone overnight. Unlike Hitler Putin has a wolf pack waiting to replace him. So a Nero moment á la Hitler's will be the moment Putin will be taken down by his own.
“Putin’s red lines have been crossed so many times that the paint is mostly tire tracks.” 😂
I definitely want to read any books you write!
Putin is bluffing, neither he or any other world leader will ever use nukes in combat.
Source? For any of this?