this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023

7 points (100.0% liked)

Credible Defense

476 readers

1 users here now

An unofficial counterpart to the subreddit r/CredibleDefense, intended to be a supplementary resource and potential fallback point. If you are an active moderator over there, please don't hesitate to contact me to be given a moderation position.

Wiki Glossary of Common Terms and Abbreviations. (Request an addition)

General Rules

Strive to be informative, professional, gracious, and encouraging in your communications with other members here. Imagine writing to a superior in the Armed Forces, or a colleague in a think tank or major investigative journal.

This is not at all intended to be US-centric; posts relating to other countries are highly encouraged.

No blind partisanship. We aim to study defense, not wage wars behind keyboards. Defense views from or about all countries are welcome so long as they are credible.

If you have experience in relevant fields, understand your limitations. Just because you work in the defense arena does not mean you are always correct.

Please refrain from linking the sub outside of here and a small number of other subs (LCD, NCD, War College, IR_Studies, NCDiplomacy, AskHistorians). This helps control site growth (especially limiting surges) and filters people toward those with a stronger interest.

No denial of war crimes or genocide.

Comments

Should be substantive and contribute to discussion.

No image macros, GIFs, emojis or memes.

No AI-generated content.

Don’t be abrasive/insulting.

No one-liners, jokes, insults, shorthand, etc. Avoid excessive sarcasm or snark.

Sources are highly encouraged, but please do not link to low-quality sources such as RT, New York Post, The National Interest, CGTN, etc. unless they serve a useful purpose.

Be polite and informative to others here, and remember that we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Do not accuse or personally challenge others, rather ask them for sources and why they have their opinions.

Do not ask others about their background as it is rude and not encouraging of others to have an open discussion.

Please do no not make irrelevant jokes, offtopic pun threads, use sarcasm, respond to a title of a piece without reading it, or in general make comments that add nothing to the discussion. Please refrain from top-level jokes. Humor is appreciated, but it should be infrequent and safe for a professional environment.

Please do not blindly advocate for a side in a conflict or a country in general. Surely there are many patriots here, but this is not the arena to fight those battles.

Asking questions in the comment section of a submission, or in a megathread, is a great way to start a conversation and learn.

Submissions

Posts should include a substantial text component. This does not mean links are banned, instead, they should be submitted as part of the text post. Posts should not be quick updates or short-term. They should hold up and be readable over time, so you will be glad that you read them months or years from now.

Links should go to credible, high-quality sources (academia, government, think tanks), and the body should be a brief summary plus some comments on what makes it good or insightful.

Essays/Effortposts are encouraged. Essays/Effortposts are text posts you make that have an underlying thesis or attempt to synthesize information. They should cite sources, be well-written, and be relatively long. An example of an excellent effort post is this.

Please use the original title of the work (or a descriptive title; de-editorializing/de-clickbaiting is acceptable), and possibly a sub-headline.

Refrain from submissions that are quick updates in title form, troop movements, ship deployments, terrorist attacks, announcements, or the crisis du jour.

Discussions of opinion pieces by distinguished authors, historical research, and research on warfare relating to national security issues are encouraged.

We are primarily a reading forum, so please no image macros, gifs, emojis, or memes.

~~Moderators will manually approve all posts.~~ Posting is unrestricted for the moment, but posts without a submission statement or that do not meet the standards above will be removed.

No Leaked Material

Please do not submit or otherwise link to classified material. And please take discussions of classified material to a more secure location.

In general, avoid any information that will endanger anyone.

#Please report items that violate these rules. We don’t know about it unless you point it out.

We maintain lists of sources so that anyone can help to find interesting open-source material to share. As outlets wax and wane in quality, please help us keep the list updated:

https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/credibleoutlets

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

qwamqwamqwam

It Takes a Village to Threaten Nukes--Recent Russian Nuclear Signalling Takes a Broader Approach (twitter.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by qwamqwamqwam to c/credibledefense

1 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Submission Statement

The taboo against nuclear use is perhaps the most widely adopted norm in human history. Russia is no exception to this, and despite the strategic debacle unfolding in Ukraine, the Russian nuclear arsenal has shown few signs of activation. By contrast, Russia has leaned heavily on nuclear signaling, where the use of nuclear weapons is heavily implied through state and quasi-state channels to achieve policy goals.

One such signaling effort has unfolded over the past week, taking the form of a cascade of articles surrounding the idea of a limited nuclear strike against Ukraine. Remarkably, these articles touch tangentially if at all on using nuclear weapons to generate battlefield effects. Instead, nuclear usage here is framed as a signal intended to coerce Western powers into giving Russia political concessions. In this sense, the discourse can be seen as an outgrowth of continuing messaging by the Kremlin attempting to reframe its war in Ukraine as an existential struggle of East vs. West.

An interesting aspect of these articles is that they are(for the most part) not explicitly state-sanctioned. They are being published by websites that are not explicitly connected with Russian government sources, and by intellectuals that are not traditionally considered government mouthpieces. Nearly simultaneously, Russia has moved nuclear weapons to Belarus, and Putin announced that the Sarmat nuclear weapon was nearly complete. The likely intent is to communicate a whole-of-society debate on the nuclear bomb, intending to indicate to the West a larger conversation is being had around nuclear weapons, and therefore potentially a larger consensus could be reached regarding their use. Putin's saber-rattling is easy to dismiss as empty threats, but a half dozen experts must at least be considered as an indication of broader trends in Russian intellectual spheres.

While Twitter links are ordinarily not sufficiently credible for this forum, the thread linked above is an aggregation of other, more mainstream sources. Given the novel nature of active nuclear signaling by a major power, the number of articles that were connected to the signaling effort, and the qualifications of the Twitter user herself, I felt the thread was the best to link to.

top 1 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] qwamqwamqwam 1 points 2 years ago

I would also like to share this excellent comment by u/TheHuscarl over on reddit, giving a better explanation of the personalities and motivations surrounding the recent signalling:

I find Russia's nuclear signaling in this conflict absolutely fascinating. I almost wish I was back in grad school so I could write my thesis about it. Just a few days ago, we had Putin out in public saying Russia was not going to use nuclear weapons, reiterating the doctrine in such a way as to be threatening but also reasonable. "Russia has no need to use them and we're doing everything in our power to avoid a situation where we have to use them." Two days later, Karaganov the Kremlin Whisperer and somewhat respected Russian intellectual (prior to the war) drops an article about how the Russians should launch a preventative retaliatory nuclear strike on central Europe. This has sparked a "debate" among Russian state-controlled media about whether or not this is a good idea. There was some light pushback, enough to show that Russia is not insane of course, but not enough to end the "debate" strongly in favor of one side or another.

Now two days later, Dimitri Trenin (who admittedly has been on the nutso train since this war started), an intellectual with close ties to the West (he served as a non-NATO senior researcher at the NATO defense college, among many other things) is parroting Karaganov's insanity. The idea here is clearly to indicate to the West, namely Europeans, that serious Russian thinkers with serious ties to the Kremlin are seriously considering the nuclear option. Clearly, instead of having Putin run out and rattle the saber or having Medvedev drunkenly fire off some bullshit, Russia is leaning hard on the "well now look here Euros, even smart men, men you respected, are talking about nukes now." It's meant to show that nuclear use isn't some fantasy of the Kremlin or bluster, but rather a genuine consideration and discourse among the Russian elite and Russian society as a whole. It's a fascinating tact to take. It shows commitment to the cause from the elite, it shows the idea that Russian society is seriously capable of considering this, and it genuinely makes the threat feel more holistic and real. It's also an explicit targeting of Europe, not Ukraine, which is a shift I would say in the Kremlin implicit threats. Because these intellectuals have ties to the Kremlin, it also sparks Western intellectuals to say things like, "Well, this is clearly the Kremlin messaging, should we take this more seriously etc etc" which perpetuates the discourse. Tie it to the whole Belarus nuclear move and Russia is doing an excellent job of keeping its big leverage tool, the nukes, shoehorned into the news cycle/social media discourse of the West during this counteroffensive, keeping it there so everyone remembers that if Ukraine goes too far, they'll do the big bad thing.