Regulation? I'm not sure you understand how autocracies work.
Let me sum up:
Putin does what he wants, when he wants, and anyone who opposes him is repressively crushed, in a country where a mildy critical tweet is currently attracting 20+ year prison sentences, and responding to one with an emoji is considered treasonous (and he seems to be bringing back forced labour in drone factories in a nostalgic retro move). He's also supreme commander of the army and has given himself emergency powers, so it's his decision alone about war and nukes.
And it wouldn't be some icbm launch in vladivostok like in your war games imagination with the big countdown to impact clock. It would be a detonation in kyiv that takes out the high command and a nice chunk of the city for good measure, which the russians would immediately blame on the Ukrainians themselves and deny any involvement, calculating that the US under their new pro-putin ally Trump wouldn't retaliate and initiate ww3. And when the fallout clears they'd control the ukraine and conduct their own thorough investigation that exonerates them, like MH17. Of course, he could miscalculate like he did with the initial invasion. but when you're dictator, nobody tells you it's a bad idea
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 18 Mar 2025, 11:26,
Reply)
no, but I'm not massively naive enough to believe Putin is constrained by regulation
nor do I think it's particularly likely he'll use nukes when he thinks he can annex the ukraine by conventional means. But I think if his power was threatened and he calculated it was advantageous to use them, a bloke who is fine with running up close to million casualties of this own people wouldnt have qualms about the risks
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 18 Mar 2025, 13:40,
Reply)