I don’t expect Putin to use your interpretation of “d” instead of his own interpretation of it which he is publicly advertising whenever he has a big public speech on the topic.
> The goal of that part of the West is to weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our country. They are saying openly now that in 1991 they managed to split up the Soviet Union and now is the time to do the same to Russia, which must be divided into numerous regions that would be at deadly feud with each other.
Same.
Also, consider nuclear false flags—the frame for them, including in these same speeches, was created and maintained throughout the entire year.
I know almost nothing about military, so please someone explain to me: what exactly does it mean for something to “be a doctrine”?
Does it mean “this is what the future military leaders are taught at a university”? Or is it rather some kind of precommitment? (Made by whom? To whom? What are the consequences if it is not followed?) Or is it like generating common knowledge for all military leaders: “these are the rules you have to follow, and you have to punish anyone who breaks these rules or tries to encourage breaking these rules”?
Usually doctrine means what people have been trained to do. In the case of nuclear doctrine, it’s a widely-publicized (to its allies and rivals) statement of intent.
I do think the odds are (at this time still) pretty low so like you less concerned. That said, d) is clearly a flexible aspect as Putin has been pushing the line that the entire “special operation” has been forced on Russia and due to potential existential risks.
I’m also wondering just how well that doctrine applies, and just how effective the controls enforcing them are, with regard to tactical nuclear weapons (e.g., artillery).
For any reasonable interpretation of d (Russia faces existential thread), anything that falls under this category would already be covered by c (Russia’s ability the retaliated with nukes is threatened).
This tells you that the point of d is to use an unreasonable interpretation, and use it in situations where even Putin cannot twist the truth enough to argue for c.
I’m less concerned. Russian nuclear doctrine lists the circumstances under which Russia would launch its nukes.
Nothing about the Ukraine war meets any of the above criteria.
I don’t expect Putin to use your interpretation of “d” instead of his own interpretation of it which he is publicly advertising whenever he has a big public speech on the topic.
From the latest speech:
> In the 80s they had another crisis they solved by “plundering our country”. Now they want to solve their problems by “breaking Russia”.
This directly references an existential threat.
From the speech a week ago:
> The goal of that part of the West is to weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our country. They are saying openly now that in 1991 they managed to split up the Soviet Union and now is the time to do the same to Russia, which must be divided into numerous regions that would be at deadly feud with each other.
Same.
Also, consider nuclear false flags—the frame for them, including in these same speeches, was created and maintained throughout the entire year.
I know almost nothing about military, so please someone explain to me: what exactly does it mean for something to “be a doctrine”?
Does it mean “this is what the future military leaders are taught at a university”? Or is it rather some kind of precommitment? (Made by whom? To whom? What are the consequences if it is not followed?) Or is it like generating common knowledge for all military leaders: “these are the rules you have to follow, and you have to punish anyone who breaks these rules or tries to encourage breaking these rules”?
Usually doctrine means what people have been trained to do. In the case of nuclear doctrine, it’s a widely-publicized (to its allies and rivals) statement of intent.
The implication is that attacks on the territories it is annexing are interpretable as an existential threat.
I do think the odds are (at this time still) pretty low so like you less concerned. That said, d) is clearly a flexible aspect as Putin has been pushing the line that the entire “special operation” has been forced on Russia and due to potential existential risks.
I’m also wondering just how well that doctrine applies, and just how effective the controls enforcing them are, with regard to tactical nuclear weapons (e.g., artillery).
For any reasonable interpretation of d (Russia faces existential thread), anything that falls under this category would already be covered by c (Russia’s ability the retaliated with nukes is threatened).
This tells you that the point of d is to use an unreasonable interpretation, and use it in situations where even Putin cannot twist the truth enough to argue for c.