Potential NATO reactions to nuclear attacks in Ukraine -- this was written quite some time ago but still provides an indication of what might happen:
How Might NATO Respond to a Possible Russian Tactical Nuclear Detonation? – NAOC
Officially this is what NATO says: "NATO remains vigilant and conveys a clear message to Russia that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. Any use of nuclear weapons by Russia would fundamentally change the nature of the war, and it would have severe consequences for Russia."
NATO's support for Ukraine | NATO Topic
“Would have severe consequences”, especially in combination with the previous sentence, is a language for “we won’t respond in any significant way because we can’t”.
Of the three options mentioned in the article, option one is completely irrelevant - nobody cares about any ultimatums, and plenty have been given and never followed through with. And seriously, who cares? I realize the authors wrote the article without the knowledge we have today.
We have now seen that the option two is not going to happen. Beside the firm (could not be any firmer, in fact) “no American troops will fight in Ukraine”, no on one is willing to send their militaries in any open capacity to Ukraine, not to the battlefield, not to the rear. This is a nonstarter. Back to the authors not knowing what we know today (though it was kindda clear back then too).
Option is three is an empty threat because:
In this event, continual nuclear escalation might be difficult to stop once it begins.
Everyone knows that. To think that Russia will not immediately respond to such a strike, especially to the one on its territory, is beyond stupid. No one will fire a nuke at Russia. I don’t believe this is even a consideration.
Furthermore, if push comes to shove, it won’t be a detonation of “a small tactical nuclear device in Ukraine”. At least I don’t think so. Logically, it would be a one-off strike on various targets. It will not be a demonstration of anything, but an actual use of nuclear weapons “in battle” to cause certain distraction in order to gain decisive advantage to achieve the stated goals.
In fact, some demonstration strike in Ukraine would be stupid, achieve nothing, and would be completely counterproductive. It would be a demonstration of weakness. Furthermore, why proceed with something that yields no benefit, but risks currently, presumably, unknown reaction by the world? I am pretty sure that the concern of the allies (and others) is not some small tactical strike somewhere in Ukraine, but the scenario I described above. Again, there is a point…
And more on the “illustrative” strike. What is it going to illustrate? And to whom? To the allies? It has been proven so far that there is no level of destruction and death in Ukraine will serve as deterrent. It has been made clear that they will supply Ukraine until it folds and can’t fight anymore. Nothing less will do. Some illusionary victory and Russian withdrawal/retreat back to where they came from does not exist and I tend to think people are well aware of it. Hence, such a small tactical strike serves no purpose and unlikely to happen.
Side note, the fact that we are talking about it 4.5 years into the war is pretty weird stuff.
www.navalnews.com
www.intellinews.com
