Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

Isn't the limited nuclear war with the West a part of the Russian military doctrine? They even had a military exercise involving nuking Warsaw. Twice.

No, limited nuclear warfare isn't part of Russian doctrine (though it was explored as part of Soviet Doctrine back in the day).  Russia has increased its reliance on nuclear forces as a result of the collapse of their conventional forces, that it true.  This has lowered the presumed threshold for use of nuclear weapons, but this seems mostly the kind of bluff Putin employs so freely.  I frankly have my doubts that the Russian believe that they could successfully detonate a nuclear weapon on the first try - their warheads have been decaying for three decades and they are only beginning to invest anything in rejuvenating them.

Of course, maybe that's why their exercises involved nuking Warsaw twice...

[grumbler]

Riding a tiger

A Flying Tiger!

[Martinus]

I meant they repeated the exercise twice, not that they would nuke Warsaw twice.

Anyway, I hope you are right. The speculations like this are obviously raising some tensions over here. The conventional wisdom seems to be that if Putin starts losing to the West in the conventional warfare, his own people would take him out (after having been whipped into the frenzy by his current bellicose behaviour), so nuking Warsaw for him in this gambit would not be there just to save his face, but also his skin. That being said, his generals may take him out either way.

[DGuller]

I'd question whether the Russian military would obey an order from Putin to launch an out-of-the-blue nuclear strike on Warsaw or Vilnius.  Would Putin take the chance that the officer receiving such an order wouldn't simply shoot him or arrest him?  I don't know the extent to which Putin's regime has been able to subvert the officer selection process sufficient to get his own cronies into positions of power in the army, but I'd expect the answer to be "not much" given the Army's recent history and the lack of indications of a purge.  The Army may be willing to go along with him so long as it is in the army's best interests, but starting a nuclear war is not in the Russian Army's best interests.

I don't think Russian military has a concept of illegal orders.  "He always obeyed his orders" is one of the highest compliments an officer could receive about his service (usually during his eulogy).  Independent thought has always been suppressed in the Russian military.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think Russian military has a concept of illegal orders.  "He always obeyed his orders" is one of the highest compliments an officer could receive about his service (usually during his eulogy).  Independent thought has always been suppressed in the Russian military.

OTOH, Rosa Kleb did defect from SMERSH to SPECTRE... 

[Duque de Bragança]

Martinus' post speaks about decision-makers in Berlin retaliating with nuclear weapons. Germany has no nuclear weapons so that can be safely ruled out.

French nuclear doctrine in the Cold War Era stated that Warsaw Pact troops invading (West) Germany would be enough for using tactical nukes against them. That was quite a wild card back then.
The nukes under French control were supposed to be able to eliminate 45 % of the industrial capacity of the USSR and 35 % of its populations. Less nuclear warheads nowadays and no fixed silo in the Plateau d'Albion anymore. There are still nuclear subs with the recent M51 missile and an air-based component with the new ASMP-A nuke for the Rafale fighter.

Chirac redefined the French nuclear doctrine by stating that if French "vital interests" were attacked nuclear retaliation was possible. Allied countries were included among them, as well energy supply sources. Foreign states leaders who resorted to terrorism could also be targeted.
Sarkozy narrowed it a bit by being more vague but it has not really changed.

[CountDeMoney]

So, read an interview with a Russian opposition analyst today, and his view is that there is no way, with the current Western policy, Putin could lose any confrontation with NATO in the Eastern Europe - because if he starts losing conventionally, he will use a tactical nuke against an Eastern European NATO capital to force NATO to withdraw - and there is no way the West would risk triggering the MAD by retaliating against a target in the Russian territory.

Thoughts?

If that happened, France would nuke Moscow as a retaliation for failing to protect French citizens in said Eastern European capital.. So it's not going to happen. I mean even Saddam Hussain didn't use chemical weapons against the West during the first Gulf war, and Putin is more rational than him.

You are joking, right? About France nuking Moscow. 

Do not joke about French nuclear policy;  it's a recent development that has largely been silent, but Zarkozy's review and subsequent revision of stated French nuclear posture a few years back--from deployment to use--is one of the biggest developments in nuclear policy in decades.
The French will use nukes outside of the NATO construct.

[The Brain]

Good. They make such a mess.

[grumbler]

I don't think Russian military has a concept of illegal orders.  "He always obeyed his orders" is one of the highest compliments an officer could receive about his service (usually during his eulogy).  Independent thought has always been suppressed in the Russian military.

I've read any number of accounts where Russian generals and politicians praised officers and NCOs for refusing to retreat when ordered during the Second world War, but I think that, in general, disobedience of "unlawful" orders is only justifiable for "honor" reasons and not for "violation of rights" reasons.

However, we are talking about generals disobeying mad orders, not lieutenants refusing "illegal' ones.  Big difference, even in Russia.

[DGuller]

I don't think Russian military has a concept of illegal orders.  "He always obeyed his orders" is one of the highest compliments an officer could receive about his service (usually during his eulogy).  Independent thought has always been suppressed in the Russian military.

I've read any number of accounts where Russian generals and politicians praised officers and NCOs for refusing to retreat when ordered during the Second world War, but I think that, in general, disobedience of "unlawful" orders is only justifiable for "honor" reasons and not for "violation of rights" reasons.

However, we are talking about generals disobeying mad orders, not lieutenants refusing "illegal' ones.  Big difference, even in Russia.

Another factors is that Russians are very good at psychology of authoritarianism.  I'm pretty sure that the problem of any human in the nuclear launch chain of having doubts about going in with their task is obvious to them, and that they've thought thought through the measures that would keep them compliant for long enough.

[The Brain]

Vodka.

[Martinus]

Martinus' post speaks about decision-makers in Berlin retaliating with nuclear weapons. Germany has no nuclear weapons so that can be safely ruled out.

Que? 

[garbon]

Martinus' post speaks about decision-makers in Berlin retaliating with nuclear weapons. Germany has no nuclear weapons so that can be safely ruled out.

Que? 

The point is, Putin would bet on decision-makers in Washington, Berlin, London, and Paris not retaliating with nuclear weapons against Russia if it had "only" hit a city or two most Westerners have barely heard of -- and certainly do not want to die for.

[DGuller]

I think Berlin was mentioned for its EU role, not because it owns nukes. 

[garbon]

I think Berlin was mentioned for its EU role, not because it owns nukes. 

Yeah agreed though the sentence is awkward as German decision-makers don't have a huge role in whether the Western nuclear powers decided to use their weapons.