3 ms·
> But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. "If I can't have it, no one can". Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake lan
by HWR_14 4y ago
> But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals.
"If I can't have it, no one can".
Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him taking such a step.
Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and intelligence.
- UIUC_06 4y agoPeople in history have quite often done dangerous things that were against their interests, even as understood at the time. Czar Nicholas mobilized his troops in the run-up to WW I, which ultimately led to his and his family's executions, as well as the deaths of millions of people. Napoleon III declared war on Prussia, which led to France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine and his own capture by the enemy. So saying "he would never do it" is pretty irresponsible.