[Goose]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn00e422yr2o

The Kremlin leader said he did not rule out changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine: the document which sets out the conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons.
“This doctrine is a living tool and we are carefully watching what is happening in the world around us and do not exclude making changes to this doctrine. This is also related to the testing of nuclear weapons.”
And he delivered a warning to those European countries who’ve been supporting Ukraine: Russia’s has “many more [tactical nuclear weapons] than there are on the European continent, even if the United States brings theirs over.”
“Europe does not have a developed [early warning system],” he added. “In this sense they are more or less defenceless.”

I take from this that he acknowledges it would take a change in the doctrine, not just that he wakes up grumpy one day. I suspect he indicates that he will do some testing before long as part of his persona as a bully.

My interpretation is that he is reminding the world that he can change that doctrine if he wakes up grumpy in the morning :-). More explicitly, based on the statement by Mr. Solovyov the "red lines" exists and just because Russia didn't do anything about X or Y, do not assume Russia will not react if you do Z. If one wants to ascribe sanity to the Russian position, it could be described as "strategic ambiguity". Europe and the US may be deterred from doing all kinds of things because they are unsure of the Russian response. It works, at least to some extent. There is no question about that. The danger is that the ambiguity may result in a nuclear war by accident.

As Dr. Strangeglove pointed out, a doomsday machine is a deterrent only if the other side knows it exists. If the west is misled into doubting the Russian will, bad things can happen. OTOH the west can't be intimidated into giving all nations who have nuclear weapons a free pass to do whatever they want. Of course there is nothing new about that. It has been true since 1949.

To set Mr. Putin straight, while Europe doesn't have an "early warning system" of their own, the US certainly does and it is interfaced directly to both NATO and Europe. The problems with tactical nuclear weapon defense are 1) the "warning" period for tactical nuclear weapons is very short and 2) distinguishing tactical nuclear weapons from non-nuclear weapons is often impossible. The time of flight for a ground launched guided missile from Russia to places in in Europe can be very short. From Kaliningrad to Berlin or Warsaw is single digit minutes. However, anything launched from Kaliningrad is going to be considered a nuclear threat just on general principles. The moment it exits Russian airspace a Patriot will smack it (if everything works as it should). NATO also intercepts and escorts all Russian aircraft that enter the ADIZ (usually long before they do). Obviously this is a big task and things may "leak". This is one big reason that the elimination of short-range tactical nuclear systems was the very first order of business in the US-USSR arms limitation activities. They are inherently destabilizing weapons.

IMO it would be very wise for NATO to say something to the effect that "In light of Russian saber rattling  and irresponsible threats to employ tactical nuclear weapons in Europe we must remind Russia that NATO's defensive posture requires us to respond promptly to any incursion by Russian forces into European airspace".  It isn't a threat to nuke them, but it does point out their attempt may not succeed. That would be very bad for them and may function as a deterrent.

[Goose]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn00e422yr2o

The Kremlin leader said he did not rule out changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine: the document which sets out the conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons.
“This doctrine is a living tool and we are carefully watching what is happening in the world around us and do not exclude making changes to this doctrine. This is also related to the testing of nuclear weapons.”
And he delivered a warning to those European countries who’ve been supporting Ukraine: Russia’s has “many more [tactical nuclear weapons] than there are on the European continent, even if the United States brings theirs over.”
“Europe does not have a developed [early warning system],” he added. “In this sense they are more or less defenceless.”

I take from this that he acknowledges it would take a change in the doctrine, not just that he wakes up grumpy one day. I suspect he indicates that he will do some testing before long as part of his persona as a bully.

My interpretation is that he is reminding the world that he can change that doctrine if he wakes up grumpy in the morning :-). More explicitly, based on the statement by Mr. Solovyov the "red lines" exists and just because Russia didn't do anything about X or Y, do not assume Russia will not react if you do Z. If one wants to ascribe sanity to the Russian position, it could be described as "strategic ambiguity". Europe and the US may be deterred from doing all kinds of things because they are unsure of the Russian response. It works, at least to some extent. There is no question about that. The danger is that the ambiguity may result in a nuclear war by accident.

As Dr. Strangeglove pointed out, a doomsday machine is a deterrent only if the other side knows it exists. If the west is misled into doubting the Russian will, bad things can happen. OTOH the west can't be intimidated into giving all nations who have nuclear weapons a free pass to do whatever they want. Of course there is nothing new about that. It has been true since 1949.

To set Mr. Putin straight, while Europe doesn't have an "early warning system" of their own, the US certainly does and it is interfaced directly to both NATO and Europe. The problems with tactical nuclear weapon defense are 1) the "warning" period for tactical nuclear weapons is very short and 2) distinguishing tactical nuclear weapons from non-nuclear weapons is often impossible. The time of flight for a ground launched guided missile from Russia to places in in Europe can be very short. From Kaliningrad to Berlin or Warsaw is single digit minutes. However, anything launched from Kaliningrad is going to be considered a nuclear threat just on general principles. The moment it exits Russian airspace a Patriot will smack it (if everything works as it should). NATO also intercepts and escorts all Russian aircraft that enter the ADIZ (usually long before they do). Obviously this is a big task and things may "leak". This is one big reason that the elimination of short-range tactical nuclear systems was the very first order of business in the US-USSR arms limitation activities. They are inherently destabilizing weapons.

IMO it would be very wise for NATO to say something to the effect that "In light of Russian saber rattling  and irresponsible threats to employ tactical nuclear weapons in Europe we must remind Russia that NATO's defensive posture requires us to respond promptly to any incursion by Russian forces into European airspace".  It isn't a threat to nuke them, but it does point out their attempt may not succeed. That would be very bad for them and may function as a deterrent.