r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 8d ago

Active Conflicts & News Megathread September 01, 2025

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.

42 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

90% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/reddituserperson1122 7d ago

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?

4

u/Glideer 7d ago

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.

2

u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago

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.

1

u/Glideer 4d ago

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.

2

u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago

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.

2

u/Glideer 4d ago

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.

1

u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago

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?

1

u/Glideer 4d ago

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.

1

u/reddituserperson1122 4d ago

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.

1

u/obsessed_doomer 2d ago

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

Not invading St. Petersburg?