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/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