Active Conflicts & News Megathread September 01, 2025

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/reddituserperson1122]

Does anyone still believe that Putin would go nuclear if he were facing a battlefield loss in Ukraine? Does that threat remain credible?

I don’t think it does at all. And if it’s not, it raises the question: what (domestic politics aside for the moment) is the downside to NATO/Europe entering the war and pushing Putin’s troops back to Russia? Perhaps letting him keep Crimea to save face.

The strategy wouldn’t have to be instant escalation. It could be a salami slicing carried out over a year or two or more. Introduce battlefield advisors (special forces) followed by specialized equipment and enablers followed by limited air power, etc. etc.

I find it extremely difficult to imagine any single addition of forces provoking nuclear escalation — it seems far more likely that battlefield losses, backed by the certainty of future losses to come, would just bring him to the negotiating table.

Why am I wrong?

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

He will use nuclear weapons if the benefits outweigh the downsides.

If he is choosing between a decisive defeat in Ukraine and international outcry and sanctions caused by use of nuclear weapons - well, you do the math.

The boiling the frog by slowly increasing the temperature strategy works on frogs. Less so on human beings. They see where the process is heading and tend to react violently.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

Given that the downsides would be permanent exile from the civilized world and probably the destruction of Russia as a functional military power, it’s hard to see how a random chunk of Ukraine would be worth It.

we have repeatedly crossed Putin‘s “red lines” many times by boiling the frog and so far he hasn’t really responded at all.

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Given that the downsides would be permanent exile from the civilized world and probably the destruction of Russia as a functional military power

Big words but, you know, permanent exiles tend not to last. How will Russia that defeated Ukraine using nukes going to be destroyed as a functional military power?

we have repeatedly crossed Putin‘s “red lines” many times by boiling the frog and so far he hasn’t really responded at all.

Ask Ukraine about Russia's red lines. Or the USA and South Korea, who now have to deal with North Korea that has access to Russian technology, including possibly ICBMs. Not to mention the massive complications stemming from the Russia-NK defence pact.

[u/grenideer → u/Glideer]

Russia working with other pariah states is a sign of their lowly standing, not of crossed red lines. It's not necessarily desperate, it's pragmatic, but only because they have few places to turn to.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

“How will Russia that defeated Ukraine using nukes going to be destroyed as a functional military power?”

It’s hard to imagine that the US and Europe wouldn’t feel obligated to punish a Russia that violated the nuclear taboo. It would be basically essential to the US and NATO maintaining a credible deterrent. The most common scenario I hear is that the US/NATO would respond with overwhelming conventional air power to decimate Russian non-dual-use conventional infrastructure. The response would necessarily be devastating in order to re-inscribe the taboo, while remaining conventional and carefully structured to communicate to the Russians that we aren’t targeting their nuclear systems or attempting regime change.

There’s just no way that Europe can tolerate an actor that dangerous on their doorstep and do nothing. And they would frankly have the means to run a meaningful, successful deep strike campaign into Russia without the US, although it would have to be much more limited than a collaboration with the US would and it would pretty much empty Europe’s missile stocks. But it’s unavoidable that the Russian Air Force would be gone within a week couple of weeks, and key targets enabling Russia’s Ukraine invasion could be struck with few expected losses. Also, keep in mind that Europe collectively has scores of modern air defense systems many of which can shoot down IRBMs, which further dilutes the threat of additional Russian tactical nuclear strikes in response to a NATO air campaign.

“Ask Ukraine about Russia's red lines. Or the USA and South Korea, who now have to deal with North Korea that has access to Russian technology, including possibly ICBMs. Not to mention the massive complications stemming from the Russia-NK defence pact.” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Sorry I must be dense. I don’t see how this is meant to be a convincing argument that Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons in response to direct European and/American intervention for Ukraine. Can you explain?

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

I know that this is the most common publicly disseminated scenario but I don't know any expert that takes it seriously.

The very idea that the West that hasn't intervened in Ukraine out of fear that Russia might go nuclear will suddenly go to war with Russia that has just proven willingness to certainly go nuclear is patently ridiculous.

What carefully calibrated deep strike campaign? Russia would just say that any attack on them is an act of war (as it indeed is) and that they would use tactical nukes against any base used to launch strikes.

The threat of conventional attack on Russia is for public consumption. Nobody will risk their country being destroyed to punish Russia for using nukes.

The idea that Europe alone would attack Russia is so impossible that it's difficult to even imagine. That means going to war with Russia. Which country is going to offer their bases for this endeavour when they know that tactical nukes will be used against those bases?

No, the response would have to be diplomatic and economic. Russia is not using nukes because of the global condemnation and sanctions that would include China and India. They know that the USA and Europe attacking them is an empty threat.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

I think the logic is the opposite. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be scary. But I think if the west didn’t respond forcefully it would basically be the end of deterrence. You’d be ratifying nuclear blackmail in the future and announcing to the world, “if you get nukes we’ll just give up.” It would certainly make a defense of Taiwan untenable. I don’t see how that situation is tolerable for Europe or the US.

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Nuclear blackmail was the core of the MAD doctrine on which the Cold War was based - for 40 years.

We only pretend to be shocked now because it is about Russia. Those same Western experts calmly discussed possible Israeli nuclear deployment against Iranian underground facilities without ever mentioning "nuclear taboo" or plans for the USA to attack Israel if that happened.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

Israel is not Russia and Iran doesn’t share a border with half of NATO. Nuclear blackmail during the Cold War is why we have a large standing military. It was understood that if the Soviets had been able to detonate a nuke on Germany’s border and dare the west to nuke them back, our deterrent wouldn’t be credible. Conventional force was what allowed us to plan on stopping Soviet forces in the field while retaining an escalation ladder. That remains true.

However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it. Again, I don’t find either of those ideas likely. You said we would impose additional sanctions on Russia. Why wouldn’t Putin just threaten to nuke Kiev if we didn’t normalize trade? No risk to him, right? He could probably break NATO by dropping a bunch of big dirty nukes right on the Ukrainian side of Poland’s border on a windy day. Poland would invoke article 5 and half of NATO would presumably be looking for any excuse to not respond while the Baltic states would be screaming bloody murder. I just don’t see how this could all be allowed to unfold.

(And that’s not even talking about what China would do once we’ve announced that if you set off a nuke we’ll stand down. Nor does it take into account domestic pressure to avenge dead NATO troops.)

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

However all of this is predicated on the belief that Putin would use a nuke, and in your telling, he would pay no price for it.

I said that?! I am consistently saying in every post that they would pay a significant price in sanctions (including by China and India), diplomatic fallout and worldwide reputational damage.

What I am saying is that the threat of the West (or Europe alone) conventionally attacking Russia in retaliation is totally non-credible.

Also, I don't think that, even if Russia used nukes, they would be dirty nukes. They would probably use nukes in air-burst mode, which leaves no significant radiation - not in Ukraine and certainly not in NATO countries.

Why don't they do that? The profit/loss calculation is currently completely against it. They are advancing, and their army keeps growing, so why risk massive sanctions and international odium?

My comment is just referring to the ridiculous notion that, in case Russia used nukes in Ukraine, the West would attack it. That's fine for public consumption but utterly lacks any logic.

[u/jambox888 → u/Glideer]

I wonder, in the hypothetical scenario of a Russian nuclear escalation, what the target would be? Nuking a few thousand thinly-spread Ukrainian troops in the countryside won't give many benefits. Maybe Sumy, Kharkiv or Kramatorsk? Surely not Kiev but who knows.

For sure if Western militaries got involved it'd be more likely they'd hit the countries that sent them but still highly unlikely.

[u/sunstersun → u/jambox888]

It's mostly likely a open the genie bottle type of moment.

Really hard to predict the consequences. I fail to see a tactical strike beyond the purposes of flipping the table. Kinda like playing a losing chess board and flipping the table.

If I had to really guess, the end result would be a strike from Europe/America conventionally, and both sides just withdrawing asap.

[u/mr_f1end → u/jambox888]

I suppose the same targets they are bombing anyways (factories, energy infrastructure, warehouses, government institutions) plus hard to destroy targets, mainly as bridges. Possibly airfields. I agree that units are so scattered in the battlefield that there would no large tactical effect when used on the front line.

That is, if they are attacking Ukraine. If they are convinced that NATO is coming for them, they would most likely nuke military airfields in EU countries. Aircraft are relatively vulnerable and concentrated, and that is where they are relatively weakest compared to NATO.

[u/jambox888 → u/mr_f1end]

I did fleetingly consider if they could use a large nuke to create a hole in the front line and attack through it, would be risky and need a huge amount of coordination though. The area would probably still be covered by artillery and air support though.

[u/bearfan15 → u/jambox888]

Anything short of a strike that completely decapitated Ukrainian leadership is completely worthless. A strike on the battlefield or minor city wont change the front that much but it will create a million more problems including a potential war with nato.

[u/Glideer → u/jambox888]

I went into this at some detail here https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1mpvt1w/comment/n8ssjv6/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The Soviet tactics called for the use of several tactical nukes to create a breakthrough and subsequent nukes in case of counterattacks or a particularly difficult defence position.

[u/jambox888 → u/Glideer]

Interesting, thanks

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/putin-says-any-western-troops-ukraine-would-be-fair-targets-2025-09-05/

Note that he’s no longer nuclear sabre rattling about NATO involvement on the ground.

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Yeah, it is highly unlikely they would respond with nukes to Western troops in Ukraine. Russia would probably target them with ballistic missiles and see whether they respond. Only if things escalate from there would nukes become an option.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

It doesn’t make any sense. Once they’ve targeted western troops a response is inevitable. There’s nothing to gain. They can’t win. Nukes will only make their defeat that much more devastating. Putin cares about regime survival more than he cares about Ukraine.

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Well, if a response is inevitable, then further escalation from the Russian side will also be inevitable.

What they are saying is - if Western troops enter Ukraine during this war without our consent, we will fire at them. Don't forget to take that into account when you make your decision.

I would say that France and the UK care even more about Paris and London than they care about Ukraine.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

I don’t think rational actors escalate just for the sake of escalation. They escalate towards a goal. There is nothing valuable to Putin to warrant that level of. If there were, he would have escalated a long time ago when Russia was losing badly.

And you’re missing out on the larger point which is that NATO’s viability and its own credible deterrent is premised in part on not being deterred by Russia. If Russia comes out of this conflict a winner, why would the Baltic states ever trust Article 5 again? You said it yourself — France and the UK care more about Paris and London. If NATO can be scared off by Putin sabre rattling about Ukraine, is a piece of paper someone signed in 1949 really going to make the UK risk London for a few hundred square miles of Poland?

[u/Glideer → u/reddituserperson1122]

NATO has spent 50 years being deterred by Russia (and deterring Russia in return). I think being deterred is nothing new to them.

If they are willing to join the war in Ukraine on one side, then by all means, it's their decision. Putin is just telling them what the consequences will be.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/Glideer]

I actually don’t think NATO was ever particularly deterred by the Soviets, seeing as NATO was not expansionist. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest we came and I don’t recall the US being particularly deterred.

[u/obsessed_doomer → u/reddituserperson1122]

Yeah what was NATO deterred from, say in the time period from 97 to 08?

Not invading St. Petersburg?