if you want to understand why russia cannot become involved in a nuclear exchange with nato (or with any nuclear power for that matter), all you have to do is gen up a map that shows russia's population densities and distribution. russia is large geographically, but she isn't much geopolitically, nor in terms of power projection.
russia is simply too vulnerable to attack, especially strategic attack, and most especially, nuclear attack. she has no ability to resist.***
russia doesn't have a large population. and, it is concentrated in western russia, in not so very many urban centers. moscow, leningrad, stalingrad and a few other places. these are the places where the majority of russia's population, wealth, industrial and scientific centers are location.
and, easily targeted, and accessed, by the assets of the military powers of the west, to include nuclear weapons.
for all practicable purposes, these few places where her populations are to be found, are easily destroyed. it wouldn't/doesn't take much of an effort to completely destroy russia.
and, without these places, she has no resiliency, no ability to rebuild. she doesn't exist without these places. and, there are just not very many of them.
someone needs to remind putin of this.
john jay @ 08.16.2022
*** and, if she contemplates a "preemptive" attack, there is the little matter of nato's "triad." she simply hasn't the horses. so to speak. oh, she could cause some damage, but she cannot do so without being totally annihilated. simple as that.
I was told by a salty sarg during the 60's if we go to war with the Russians we need to keep their troops close as we can. If a large gap appears then duck and cover. One could extrapolate the three sites you mentioned as a bell weather for possible time to duck and cover. That is if they are moved to an area like 51.
Posted by: Paul Albers | August 18, 2022 at 05:36 AM