Six Scenarios How Russia May Use Nukes.pdf
0 likes7 views
The document discusses the potential scenarios under which Russia, under Putin's leadership, might resort to using nuclear weapons amidst the failing military campaign in Ukraine. It highlights Putin's growing desperation due to military setbacks and his increasingly aggressive rhetoric, suggesting that he may consider nuclear options as a means to restore his regime's power and influence. While the likelihood of actual nuclear engagement remains low, analysts are concerned that Putin's isolated position may escalate risks, leading to a significant and unprecedented geopolitical crisis.
Six Scenarios How Russia May Use Nukes.pdf
- 1. Six Scenarios How Russia May Use Nukes Discussion of the unthinkable – The scenarios for Russia to use nuclear weapons - Matthew Rosenquist The Catalyst - Putin’s War on Ukraine After almost 8 months of conflict, the war in Ukraine is tipping in favor of the defenders and against Putin’s vaunted army. The highly motivated, resourceful, and well-supported forces of Ukraine are making a fool of Putin, his threatening rhetoric, implausible narratives, and the entire Russian military war machine. The conflict has degraded to a point that Putin has begun irrationally threatening the use of nuclear weapons - a reckless posturing that may come to fruition. The chances of a nuclear engagement are still slim, with most of Russia’s propaganda being a political ploy to disincentivize the support from the West, but the real risks are not zero and have grown significantly over the past few months. Desperation Always Leads to the Worst Options. As an intellectual exercise, it is valuable to discuss what such a foolish move may look like, how it would unfold, and detail the unthinkable – scenarios for Russia to use nuclear weapons. The Russian conquest of Ukraine was supposed to be quick and easy, but Putin’s grandiose vision of an expanded Russia has crashed and is unceremoniously burning at his feet. Putin is becoming desperate for international support, economic stability, weapon supplies, and battlefield successes. His very existence may be at stake domestically, given his approach of misinformation, false narratives, and
- 2. disrespect for the lives of his countrymen. For the first time in decades, Putin is at risk of losing his totalitarian grip on the Russian people. As the number of paths to success dwindle over time, Putin is making progressively more desperate decisions in hopes of finding a way to win or destroy his opposition. Putin is a man of focus with visions of greatly increasing power, which has manifested in delusions of grandeur. He sees himself as the heroic leader, like a re-envisioning of tsars of the past, who will deliver the manifest destiny of his and Russia’s greater glory. Putin has methodically elevated himself, consolidated his domestic influence, and removed the capability of other political rivals to challenge his rule. He controls the national media and crafts careful narratives for his citizens that promote his image, vilify his enemies, and pacify all into allowing him to rule without oversight or limits. On the global political stage, he has spent so long trying to make the world believe that Russia is supremely powerful, he has begun to believe the propaganda himself. Unfortunately for his vision, delusions don’t hold up well when faced with unforgiving reality. His unraveling began in February 2022, with the misguided invasion of Ukraine. It was clear from the first few weeks that fundamental aspects were not going according to plan. Expecting a quick win with a rapid capitulation of the government and passive resistance from the people, he was shocked that immediate success was not achieved. After all, according to all the bluster, Russia had the second most powerful military on the planet and he was simply going to overtake what he viewed as peasants’ farming territory in an adjacent region that couldn’t possibly possess any chance to resist militarily, politically, or psychologically. He was wrong. Not being able to roll over Ukraine, as part of a larger campaign to destabilize the West, has been a cold slap of reality that he refuses to accept. Thus far, he has been unwilling to admit that his invasion of Ukraine is a costly failure that will adversely affect the people and government of Russia for generations to come and will likely define the future of his career and how history books will unflatteringly describe his rule. He still grasps at his fantasy worldview which is exemplified by the continual push of unrealistic narratives of successes in Ukraine, that even his most blinded supporters are beginning to seriously question. There is growing outrage among the citizens. They are fleeing, protesting, and sentiment against the war is growing faster than the federal security services can ruthlessly suppress it. Putin is desperate to win - at any cost. Everything he desires is on the line and losing is simply not an option. This has fueled dangerous actions, as he is resorting to nuclear insinuations and threats against Ukraine and the West. His supporters and military leaders publicly advocate for use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Extremists on Russian television openly talk about launching strategic nuclear weapons against NATO bases and Western cities. Heads of government, political analysts, and military leaders are raising the warning signs. They are careful to not lend too much weight to Putin’s nuclear threats or to give them an unnecessary influence in the media, both of which might deter nations from supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression.
- 3. They are quietly saying Putin’s gross failures have led to his instability and lack of options, bringing humankind closer to the release of nuclear weapons than ever before. Whims of a Single Mind Putin is the central character of this historic story, as he initiated the war and has total autonomy over the Russian government, including its nuclear arsenal. As analysts often say, “If Putin stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends.” Putin has been well-studied for decades and possesses strong ambitions to be revered as the next tsar who restores the glory of imperial Russian dominance. Putin has spent considerable resources rebuilding the military might and industrial capacity as his crowning tool to drive his personal foreign policy objectives. He has a history of brutality against anyone or any country that might stand in the way of his steamroller tactics. Putin’s crusade has long been to reestablish control over the lands and peoples formerly under Soviet domination and return Russia to full superpower status. His mindset is crucial to understand. In every endeavor and political maneuver, Putin operates from a singular mindset: he will win, or everyone must lose. Conventional Forces Cannot Succeed Alone Dominating Ukraine is an important step in Putin’s strategic vision but the war has unexpectedly derailed his grand plans. The tactics, logistics, and weapons of the vaunted Russian war machine are failing. The methodical counter-offensives by Ukraine are erasing the Russian gains and showing the true ineffectiveness of Russia’s military might. Initial attacks failed to take the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and resulted in a massive retreat of the Russian army from the outskirts of the city. Attacks in the south and east have largely been stopped over a month ago and Ukraine has launched a tremendously successful counterattack that has repatriated huge swaths of land from the invaders. Perhaps more importantly, the Russian forces of men and equipment have been decimated. Front line divisions have been gutted, air assets destroyed or made largely ineffective, and the once feared masses of tank columns turned to scrap or embarrassingly captured by Ukrainians for use against the invaders. Russia’s very capability to conduct conventional war has been gutted in impressive ways on a scale that was never imagined or predicted by the experts. Putin has shifted to heavily leveraging mercenaries like the Wagner group, convicts, and conscripting people from conquered areas to form defense forces to support the regulars in the Russian army. In a desperate move, Putin mobilized at least 300 thousand citizens for combat deployment in Ukraine but had neither the equipment to properly arm them nor the ability to train them to operate alongside other troops. Many citizens immediately fled the country so they could not be forced to fight. Lines of cars at the borders stretched for miles as people tried desperately to leave Russia. Government officials began indiscriminately rounding people up. Citizens and even senior politicians became uncharacteristically vocal about the sweeps scooping up people that should have been exempt. It became a political nightmare for Putin and severely undermined his popularity.
- 4. Thus far, these newly constituted forces aren’t making an appreciable difference on the battlefield. As predicted, the newly mobilized citizens, ranging from ages 18 to 40, are failing to improve Russian combat capabilities and many of these citizen conscripts are rapidly losing their lives. To compound matters, families of those sent to Ukraine have largely been kept in the dark as to the fate of their loved ones. Putin has been carefully concealing the overall death and injury figures from his people. Russian soldiers aren’t allowed to take smartphones into battle, as they would be able to take pictures and videos that contradict government propaganda. The regime wants to control all information being sent back that could be scrutinized by the public. This includes blocking many western sites that show updates from Ukrainian forces, that often include pictures and video evidence. For now, the dead Russian soldiers are revealing any secrets as very few corpses are allowed to return to their families. Putin's mobile incinerators are overwhelmed and cannot destroy all the bodies in-theatre and retreating forces are burying them in unmarked graves or just leaving them for the advancing Ukrainians to clean up. Desperate for news, Russian families often turn to the Ukraine government sources to determine the fate of loved ones. Putin’s failing outlook on success and persistent propaganda that ‘everything is going according to plan’ is tearing apart at the seams. The people of Russia don’t know the true costs or scope of incompetence, and Putin can only keep his failures concealed for so long until he must construct a bigger narrative to promote as a distraction. A negotiated win is unlikely at this point. Putin’s campaign to destroy Ukraine’s critical infrastructures is putting pressure on citizens, but not persuading them to negotiate for peace. Given its military successes, Ukraine refuses to come to the negotiation table because they have a strong play to completely evict Russia, take back their annexed lands, and degrade the enemy military so resolutely that they won’t pose a threat to Ukraine for decades. Ukraine has made the conditions clear: Russia must leave their country entirely before they will talk peace, otherwise they will push the Russians out by force. Putin is no longer being offered political offramps to claim victory, as the world now sees he would just take that time to regroup and continue his bullying. He has refused every opportunity to de-escalate, instead choosing to become more aggressive at every turn. At this point, Putin cannot back away without being seen as the failing and evil oppressor. Putin operates from a singular mindset: He will win, or everyone must lose. The Unthinkable Option The combination of dwindling options, desperation for success, and lack of empathy for his adversaries and his own people may lead Putin to do the unthinkable: use nuclear weapons in war. Not since the end of WWII have such weapons been used to kill. It has been recognized as a Pandora’s Box that no rational nation has ever wanted to open. Even talking about the use of employing nuclear weapons is considered taboo. Those who would actually use them will be seen as a pariah and shunned by all of mankind.
- 5. The decision to use nukes, even for Putin, would not be taken without serious forethought. He would likely only use them if he felt his success depended upon them. He is the type of person who would use every tool at his disposal to ensure his political and personal survival since failure is not an option. Usage will be tied to specific goals, a clear purpose, and will likely be part of a larger plan that requires preparation. This allows Western nations an opportunity to detect, attempt to undermine, and prepare. Knowing this, the Russians will also conduct deception and misdirection campaigns in an attempt to maintain the element of tactical surprise. Such is the fog of war that makes it difficult to determine how Putin will ultimately maneuver. Leon Panetta, the former US Defense Secretary and CIA director, recently indicated that analysts believe the probability of tactical nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine has risen from 1-5% to 20-25%. That represents an incredible overall risk when the likelihood of such an event is multiplied by the overall impacts. But why would experts attribute such a high chance? One of the key aspects is that it has become apparent that Russia lacks the conventional forces to win against Ukraine. As Russia continues to lose equipment that is difficult to replace, they are also losing large numbers of their effective soldiers which they are having immense difficulty in replenishing. In contrast, Ukraine has a rapidly growing force of highly motivated volunteers, effective training and preparedness capabilities, and is being supplied with progressively more powerful weapons from the West. Every day, Ukraine’s military capacity grows while Russia’s military might diminishes in its capability. Russian air power has taken serious losses and failed to achieve air superiority. The Russian navy has been embarrassed by the sinking of their flagship, the Moskva, by a country that no longer has a navy. The ships have retreated far from Ukraine’s coastline and recently were attacked hundreds of miles away in their ports. Russian smart cruise missiles are being depleted and less accurate ordinance is not hitting desired targets. Russia, one of the largest exporters of weapons, has had to ask for military munitions from Iran and North Korea in the form of drones, artillery ammunition, and more missiles. Russia no longer occupies the northern region of Ukraine, near the capital of Kyiv, as they had to abandon gains in the early months of the invasion. Russia is also retreating in the East and South, even in areas they declared annexed as part of sham referendums. Simply put, Russia’s conventional forces cannot hold the ground they have taken, much less deliver the win that Putin is demanding. Politically and economically, Putin is isolated. His actions have directly led Sweden and Finland, both with respected military might and strategic advantages, to join NATO. Something that was never seriously considered before Putin’s violent expansion plans in Ukraine. This has made NATO more powerful than it has ever been. For reasons previously described, Putin is all-in. As it becomes more obvious that Russia’s economic, political, and conventional military forces will fail to achieve success, what is Putin’s plan to be triumphant? The answer, perhaps only known to Putin, maybe leveraging his nuclear arsenal in some oppressively tyrannical way.
- 6. Ruinous Plans Russia maintains about six thousand nuclear warheads that can be used in tactical, theatre, and global ways. They possess several delivery mechanisms from ground-based artillery and rockets, air-based missiles and long-range bombers, mobile launchers, ship and submarine weapon platforms, and ballistic missiles embedded in deep underground silos. Two thousand are considered tactical with lower nominal yields and are designed to be used on the battlefield rather than against long-range targets. These are still sizable weapons, with each warhead reaching from 10 to 100 kilotons in yield. By comparison, the weapons used in WWII were 15 and 21 kilotons in size. The remaining are designed for a longer range, including striking targets on any continent, with larger detonation yields from 800 kilotons to over a megaton. The number and dispersion of these weapons afford Russia many different options to affect the military, political, and economic factors in Ukraine and to potential enemies across the globe. Nuclear Weapon Scenarios There are several potential ways that Russia may use nuclear weapons. None of them are desirable and all of them will likely cause significantly more long-term harm to Russia than their adversaries. However, in desperate times, despots tend to reach for whatever tool they hope may deliver them victory from the jaws of defeat. The following scenarios describe the range of nuclear weapon deployments and accompanying purposes that Putin may hope to accomplish with their use. These actions may be independent or escalatory in nature over time. Scenario #1: Exhibition – The detonation of a single weapon near Ukraine in an unpopulated area to demonstrate Putin’s willingness to use nuclear weapons in this conflict. Although the targeting would purposefully seek to cause zero direct casualties from the blast, with a relatively low-yield tactical nuclear warhead, the purpose would be to generate fear in the West and the free people of Ukraine. Putin would want to destabilize the support of Western nations that provide weapons to Ukraine and increase political influence to compel Ukraine to seek a rapid settlement through concessions advantageous to Russia. The fear would also put pressure on Ukrainian citizens who, as a result, might drive their government back to the negotiation table. Such a tactic is in line with previous methodologies, as Putin has historically leveraged fear in pushing his domestic and foreign policy. There is a risk, but minimal as he has already established the rhetoric for use of such a weapon and would likely claim that he was forced to end the Western threats against recently annexed territory that is now Russia. This narrative would not be supported by the vast majority of nations that have already publicly denounced the sham annexation referendums. But Putin could claim that he showed great compassion and restraint by not targeting people in this demonstration of Russian power. Dealing with the nuclear fallout issues and the political stigma of being the first country to break the agreement to not use weapons of mass destruction would be trivial for Putin compared to losing the war. As an example: A detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon in the Black Sea, off the coast of Ukraine.
- 7. Although valuable as a threat in negotiations, the downside to demonstrating a willingness to use a nuclear weapon largely undermines the element of surprise for any future attack. Governments across the globe will begin preparing their citizens and critical infrastructures for such attacks and recovering from the aftermath. Scenario #2: Single - The detonation of a single tactical warhead targeting Ukrainian troops on the front line. A small warhead in the tens-of-kilotons range would be sufficient and could be easily deployed by a precision hypersonic cruise missile or long-range bomber. An air detonation would cause maximum damage to ground troops and civilians. As Ukrainian forces defend population centers, these may be a target. The casualties would be horrific, similar to those seen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. For Putin, this has the fear benefits of showcasing a willingness to use nukes in battle and the added benefit of destroying specific troop concentrations, causing thousands of direct casualties to give a battlefield advantage to the opposing Russian soldiers. Such an attack may disrupt international support, bring Ukraine to the negotiation table at a disadvantage, and will dissuade Ukraine from concentrating troops in large numbers, which is necessary for effective offensive operations. The threat of future nuclear strikes could shift the tempo of ground operations in favor of Russia. The international blowback would be immense. The United States and likely NATO would launch a significant conventional counterattack against Russian military assets, yet not cross any line perceived that could escalate into a larger nuclear conflict. Russia would find itself further isolated from its few remaining significant allies. Conditions would need to be set to justify such actions – for example, a false-flag operation that could be blamed on Ukraine. Russia is well known for these types of activities but Western intelligence agencies have become proficient at detecting such stratagems and unmasking them before they occur. A nuclear attack would forever place Putin in the history books as a villain, but likely as a bold hero in Russia’s domestic references. Russia and Putin in particular would be a pariah on the international stage, which would invoke severe economic and personal hardship for its citizens. This is not much of a deterrent as it is something that Putin is already willing to sacrifice for his glory and retainment of power. As an example: A detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon against fortified Ukrainian troop positions in the logistically important city of Bakhmut.
- 8. Scenario #3: Multiple - If a single tactical nuke plays well to the strengths of Russian forces, then multiple detonations could be even more effective. Several tactical warheads used on the battlefield in coordination to undermine an entire Ukrainian counter-offensive could result in tens of thousands of direct casualties and irradiated areas that create longstanding barriers to Ukraine repatriating its country. A likely area would be in the southern front of Kherson. As Russian troops evacuate the Eastern side of the Dnipro River and the city of Kherson, it would leave a concentrated number of Ukrainian troops waiting to bridge the natural river barrier in preparation for deeper assaults into enemy-held territory. Four tactical nuclear warheads, each in the hundred-kiloton range, spread across the lines of veteran Ukrainian troops would be devastating. Troop losses could be in the tens of thousands and civilian deaths could be an order of magnitude greater. The sheer number of overall wounded, needing evacuation and medical attention, could destabilize Ukrainian resources for months. It could irradiate the entire southern counter-offensive line, thereby inhibiting future advances along this front and greatly shortening Russia’s defensive lines. It would put a formidable barrier protecting Crimea from the advancing Ukrainian ground forces. The political, economic, and social ramifications for multiple simultaneous detonations are not much different from the use of a single weapon. It would create the international fear that gives Putin an advantage to negotiate advantageous terms of a cease-fire, Russia would become further isolated and its people would suffer for generations, but Putin would likely remain in office. The expected counterattack from the west would be a temporary setback as many military capabilities would need to be rebuilt, but over time the Russian capabilities would return and Putin would possess an even greater power to threaten his neighbors with unjustified aggression. Scenario #4: False Flag - Single tactical weapon detonated in a Russian area, seeking to blame Ukraine or NATO, as justification for full mobilization and a precursor for unrestricted warfare options. A significant attack against Russian civilians would be required. Detonation of a dirty bomb, a small nuclear warhead, the release of chemical or biological weapons, a catastrophic terrorist incident, or perhaps the brutal downing of passenger airlines might suffice. The options are as endless as the sadistic creativity of those who would plan to intentionally harm their own innocent citizens in an attempt to blame Ukraine as justification for an even greater attack against other civilians. Russia has already been telegraphing many different scenarios, including: As an example: Four detonations of a tactical nuclear warheads to destroy Ukrainian troop concentrations on the Kherson front, blunting the advance of Ukraine’s southern counter offensive. As an example: A Russian False-Flag operations detonates a dirty bomb in the Russian city of Belgorod and Putin is quick to blame Ukraine and NATO for justification for a retaliatory strike.
- 9. • A “nuclear accident” may be orchestrated by Ukraine at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which ironically is occupied by the Russian military and has been shut down by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) • Accusing, without evidence, that Ukraine is planning to detonate a dirty bomb in the Kherson region • A bizarre narrative that Ukraine has highly advanced biological or genetic weapons that can target Russians and be deployed by birds and bats. Although the international community patently treats these baseless accusations as absurd, Russia has a long history of implicating others in actions they themselves are planning. If this is the case, Russia has advanced nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare capabilities so they could easily create a false-flag event in an attempt to blame Ukraine. Thus far, the international community is not proving that gullible, but that may not matter in the end. If a nuclear fizzle or dirty bomb goes off in a Russian city, Putin can spin a narrative to enrage his citizens and open the door to attack Ukraine in overly horrific ways. If a dirty bomb goes off in Belgorod Russia, with a population of over 300 thousand citizens, the people of Russia will feel attacked. Putin points the finger at Ukraine and the NATO countries supplying them with the necessary know-how and weapons and it might be plausible enough in the short term to launch a nuclear attack against Kyiv in retaliation. It won’t matter that Putin’s operatives were the ones behind the attack. The media spin directed at the citizenry will craft the necessary narrative. Perhaps even some of Russia’s international allies will publicly support the accusations. Russia is well known for its False Flag operations. The False Flag scenario enables allow Putin the use of nuclear and other weapons while trying to delay and minimize the response from the West. It also has a good chance of enraging and therefore unifying the Russian people against Ukraine and NATO, solidifying Putin's domestic power, justifying any brutal tactics moving forward, allowing for full mobilization, and possibly increasing international support from other nations. This may be the catalyst for the other nuclear scenarios being outlined. Scenario #5: Theatre – A nuclear attack against Kyiv to destroy the Ukrainian government, leadership, communications, logistics command, and drive capitulation of soldiers. Likely hundreds of thousands of direct casualties and perhaps over a million when including secondary effects. An 800-kiloton airburst nuclear warhead over Kyiv would destroy the city and perhaps leave Ukraine in ruin - an extreme measure that would bring severe consequences. But as long as Putin could convince his citizens it was justified, he would remain in power and would set the conditions of occupation in the Eastern provinces. He could secure his short-term victory at a terrible long-term cost. If he cannot successfully put down internal dissension, his regime will likely fall. But if he survives, Russia will be demonized and feared for generations by the international community, which is the kind of power he finds intoxicating while bullying nearby neighbors. As an example: Direct nuclear attack against the governmental, leadership, and civilian population center of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
- 10. The biggest risk is that such an egregious act could bring NATO directly into the war on a conventional level with the option to use its nuclear arsenal if Putin were to try the same tactic again. The long-term prospects for Russia would be dismal. Economically and politically isolated, everyone would struggle. Over time, Russia would start to look similar to North Korea, but Putin would remain in charge, ruling with an iron fist. Scenario #6: Global - Initiate a preemptive sneak attack against the West on a massive scale with several waves of attacks. Global thermonuclear war. Hundreds of millions in direct casualties and long- term losses in the billions. An unthinkable doomsday scenario. Yet, this very situation has been contemplated, analyzed, and preparations put in place for decades. It has always been a possibility since 1949 when two nuclear superpowers emerged. When you know your enemies have more capability, can overpower, and can outlast you, bold moves and big gambles must often be made to come out on top. The European countries of NATO likely possess the ability to defend their nations from all conventional forces that Russia could bring to bear. When including the United States into the equation, NATO possesses an insurmountable industrial capacity to wage war. The US has a particularly deep and mature defense industrial base, as was witnessed in WWII, and any long-term conventional engagement with the West cannot be truly won unless that capability is undermined. The US also maintains, by far, the bulk of remaining nuclear weapons that could threaten Russia. These weapons of mass destruction must be overcome if Putin finds himself squared off against NATO. The Russian conventional military cannot defeat Ukraine, much less the significantly more powerful collection of NATO forces. Other than surrendering or admitting to an embarrassing defeat, the only long-term move is nuclear. This is exactly why the superpowers have worked so hard to avoid a direct conflict, as it can quickly devolve into a global nuclear war. Putin may pursue the destruction of longstanding enemies who possess the industrial and economic capability to ruin his plans for expansion and Russia’s divine future. Events may escalate, likely once Putin sees no other way for assured victory, and he may choose to act while he still possesses the military power and retains the domestic authority to enact a defining moment for glory. Desperation twists reality and distorts the view from what is likely to what can be possible. Panic might drive a man to believe that a surprise nuclear attack could surgically disable NATO’s ability to counterattack with its nuclear arsenal, giving Russia a knockout win. Whether he truly believes it or not is unimportant. It only matters if he is desperate enough to try. Putin is surely not the first Russian leader to consider a nuclear first strike. Russia has been developing first-strike weapons that could conceivably catch the United States by surprise for decades. But even the most optimistic outcomes still have dozens of warheads raining down on Russia. As an example: Strategic sneak attack against NATO countries, with an emphasis on the US, to decisively destroy current and future military, economic, and political capabilities that challenge Russian global objectives. Global thermonuclear war that impacts the survivability of humankind.
- 11. This scenario truly becomes a global problem since it is a path that is bad for everyone, not just NATO, Ukraine, and Russia. Yes, nuclear fallout and subsequent winter are dreadful and will likely kill billions, but so will the initial attacks. Here is why - if Russia launches a full-scale nuclear attack against the West, they will also target China, India, and other sizable neighbors as well. That may sound implausible because at least China and India currently appear as allies, but Russia has long known a nuclear exchange with the US will leave it in ruins and unable to defend itself. That exposes the motherland to being easily overrun by nearby armies, which number in the millions if left unchecked. So, it is likely that some of those nukes from Russia will find their way into the major population centers of nearby countries. Understanding the reasons that Putin might gamble in such a way is truly beyond logic. It is a great reset button where countries may rise again in ways that could give post-apocalyptic advantages in Russia’s favor. But that is a speculative fantasy. Perhaps in his mind, unlike his predecessors, ruling over an empire of ash is better than not ruling at all. The Risks Remain Low It must be clearly understood that the use of nuclear weapons remains unlikely in 2022. If the current trends persist, the risks in 2023 may be significantly higher but should remain low overall. The key will be watching for leading indicators that Putin is preparing a public narrative, increasing nuclear weapons readiness, has expending all plausible conventional means to defeat Ukraine, or is losing control of his citizens to the extent he may be violently removed. These are all situations that indicate his desperation may be leading down the nuclear path. Rationally discussing the potential risks, for the benefit of identifying leading indicators, is helpful in being prepared to intervene or effectively respond. It is not constructive to lend unnecessary fear or credibility to the potential risks, as that would only benefit Putin’s influence and manipulation tactics to the detriment of free peoples around the globe. Understanding the people behind the risks - their motivations, objectives, capabilities, and limitations -is key to predicting their actions. In the coming months there will be uncertainty and likely continuing escalations surrounding Russia’s war in Ukraine. Ongoing analysis of these events is useful in understanding the evolving risks and identifying opportunities to resolve the issues. We must not be coerced by fear but rather strategically pragmatic in protecting the world from nuclear tyranny.