[Goose]

It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea.

I think Russia is a different situation than many of the totalitarian states in the world. In Russia, the oligarchs and the new apparatchiks exist and have significant power. In places like North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq, they didn't/don't. Putin derives the vast majority of his support from the fact he lifted Russia out of the economic and social chaos of the end of the Soviet Union. People could repeatedly say they were better off than six years ago. That situation has kind of plateaued, but nobody in Russia wants to go back to 1998. Given a bit of time, the sanctions will do exactly that. This will make Putin eminently disposable if it happens. At least that is what the US/NATO/EU is hoping for. The question will be can Putin rely on Russian nationalism to overcome this issue. The people in Russia tend to sit on the fence as much as possible. The military, the oligarchs, and the apparatchiks are not so affected by nationalism and I hope their self-interest will prevail.

 Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrain...2696a3448b

I think there are a lot of things the West can do short of entering the war directly that would greatly help the Ukraine. These things are not being done yet because the West doesn't want a wider war. Using chemical weapons will significantly up the pressure on folks like Biden to "do something". Selling (or lend-lease) things like MRLS systems to Ukraine could never be done today. After CBW weapons are used, maybe it could, for example. Is it worth it to Putin? In Syria, there was no down side. In Ukraine, the down side could range from all-out war to a significantly enhanced opponent capability. Lets hope we don't get to find out.

I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.

It won't "spoil the land". The radiation effects are minimal. Otherwise, the weapons would be pretty much useless. It will destroy the targets however. This is the exact scenario that NATO has for many years feared, that if either side in a conventional war in Europe felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would be forced to use battlefield nuclear weapons in order to "send a message" to the other side that they were not willing to accept defeat. This would lead to a spiral towards a strategic exchange.
IMHO the danger to the West is that Putin gets locked in a stalemate that looks like it could last months at least. The longer it lasts, the more probable it is that economic hardship will lead to his ouster. It will also become more clear to the Russian people that their troops are getting killed in a war they did not want and that will not benefit them. You are quite right that this scenario is the most dangerous of all.
That is when a desperate Putin may do something real stupid. I am hoping his military simply won't do it. They don't want to be on the other end of a retaliatory strike.

[Goose]

It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea.

I think Russia is a different situation than many of the totalitarian states in the world. In Russia, the oligarchs and the new apparatchiks exist and have significant power. In places like North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq, they didn't/don't. Putin derives the vast majority of his support from the fact he lifted Russia out of the economic and social chaos of the end of the Soviet Union. People could repeatedly say they were better off than six years ago. That situation has kind of plateaued, but nobody in Russia wants to go back to 1998. Given a bit of time, the sanctions will do exactly that. This will make Putin eminently disposable if it happens. At least that is what the US/NATO/EU is hoping for. The question will be can Putin rely on Russian nationalism to overcome this issue. The people in Russia tend to sit on the fence as much as possible. The military, the oligarchs, and the apparatchiks are not so affected by nationalism and I hope their self-interest will prevail.

 Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrain...2696a3448b

I think there are a lot of things the West can do short of entering the war directly that would greatly help the Ukraine. These things are not being done yet because the West doesn't want a wider war. Using chemical weapons will significantly up the pressure on folks like Biden to "do something". Selling (or lend-lease) things like MRLS systems to Ukraine could never be done today. After CBW weapons are used, maybe it could, for example. Is it worth it to Putin? In Syria, there was no down side. In Ukraine, the down side could range from all-out war to a significantly enhanced opponent capability. Lets hope we don't get to find out.

I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.

It won't "spoil the land". The radiation effects are minimal. Otherwise, the weapons would be pretty much useless. It will destroy the targets however. This is the exact scenario that NATO has for many years feared, that if either side in a conventional war in Europe felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would be forced to use battlefield nuclear weapons in order to "send a message" to the other side that they were not willing to accept defeat. This would lead to a spiral towards a strategic exchange.
IMHO the danger to the West is that Putin gets locked in a stalemate that looks like it could last months at least. The longer it lasts, the more probable it is that economic hardship will lead to his ouster. It will also become more clear to the Russian people that their troops are getting killed in a war they did not want and that will not benefit them. You are quite right that this scenario is the most dangerous of all.
That is when a desperate Putin may do something real stupid. I am hoping his military simply won't do it. They don't want to be on the other end of a retaliatory strike.