He is insane. Everyone who plans a game of brinksmanship is insane. To make it credible one has to be partially or fully mad.
As for your other statement:
1. You are correct - Russians would not have their country destroyed with nuclear fire.
3. However, the same applies to the West. This is exactly why I was mentioning that no Western leader will play a game of chance with their own citizens. That’s the only good thing about nuclear weapons - it makes all sides take a pause and think a bit.
3. Why do 1 and 2 exist?
Step a: Russia knows it cannot defeat NATO conventionally, thus its nuclear doctrine allows for use of tactical weapons when they are about to be massively outrun by a superior conventional force.
Step b: NATO knows they can defeat Russia conventionally, and thus have to calculate what that would mean in terms of escalation. NATO knows that if Russia used tactical nuclear weapons, they would have to respond with their own similar weapons.
Step c: Russia knows that the NATO tactical response would most likely escalate into the use of strategic weapons.
Step d: Ditto for NATO.
Step e: Neither NATO nor Russia wants to risk such outcomes, and thus everything is done in a moderated manner (eg, Germany going from only delivering helmets to now giving tanks, artillery systems and anti-air missiles - everything has been very paced, much to Ukraine’s chagrin …!!!!)
What does all of the above mean?
- Both NATO and Russia will not escalate.
- In the same way Putin/Russians will not risk nuclear war with NATO because of Ukraine, in the same way no French President or Italian Prime Minister or Western whatever will risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. No matter what fans of either side think, that will not happen.
- Finally, it will result in what I said. An armistice, with the borders being frozen more or less where the frontlines currently are. Russia has enough weapons to make life miserable for Ukraine, but not to take over the country. Ukraine can score wins against Russia (eg a ship here, a plane there), but that will not take Russia back to the February borders (be it Feb 2022 or Feb 2014).
An armistice will happen by the end of this year. I’d bet on it. Definitely if President Trump wins/ Republicans keep at least one of the houses of Congress.
Should Biden seem to be on the way to a triumphant end, then maybe the armistice will happen in mid/late 2025.
But an armistice will happen. There will be no winner to that war. Ukraine is afraid for political reasons to mobilize the 500,000+ people it needs; and Russia is still playing that ‘special operations nonsense’ they’ve been squawking about for two years.
And NATO will not get more involved than they are now. I can only imagine how the German Chancellor, for example, would explain to his citizens (who are already really angry at the economy, considering Germany always needed cheap energy to maintain the industrial edge they enjoyed for decades) that the German military will be fighting Russia. Will never happen.
But, let’s see. I could be wrong. :)
You’ve described how they are in WWI with better weapons but no chemical warfare (yet?).
Except in WWI it not due to one person. There was insanity or brinkmanship, to use your turn.
To use another old term it is not a just war on the part of Putin.