It can work the other way. Putin’s apparent revision to the nuclear doctrine threatens nuclear engagement with a NATO state that supports non-nuclear weaponisation for Ukraine’s cross-border incursion into Russia. However such an attack on say for example London would provoke a coordinated NATO response from NATO members (whose 1bn population dwarfs Russia’s 145 million) under Article 5. If Russia holds off on a direct attack on a NATO member but uses nuclear force on Kiev that’s not going to trigger Article 5 but would trigger a massive escalation in conventional response by NATO. Is Putin really going to risk sustained long range ballistic attacks on Mother Russia? I doubt media censorship would be enough to suppress the popular opposition that would engulf him.
The problem is it doesn't work the other way. See Korea, see Vietnam, see Syria. Mafia rules whatever is mine is mine, whatever is yours is negotiable.
It can work the other way. Putin’s apparent revision to the nuclear doctrine threatens nuclear engagement with a NATO state that supports non-nuclear weaponisation for Ukraine’s cross-border incursion into Russia. However such an attack on say for example London would provoke a coordinated NATO response from NATO members (whose 1bn population dwarfs Russia’s 145 million) under Article 5. If Russia holds off on a direct attack on a NATO member but uses nuclear force on Kiev that’s not going to trigger Article 5 but would trigger a massive escalation in conventional response by NATO. Is Putin really going to risk sustained long range ballistic attacks on Mother Russia? I doubt media censorship would be enough to suppress the popular opposition that would engulf him.
The problem is it doesn't work the other way. See Korea, see Vietnam, see Syria. Mafia rules whatever is mine is mine, whatever is yours is negotiable.