[Goose]

I used to have an event manager who would screw up on occasion. I knew she screwed up because whenever she did, she wouldn't tell me about the screwup right away, she would have a senior partner send me an "unprompted" note lauding her skills and capabilities. It was always a "brace yourself" moment. 

I get that same feeling every time I read a senior Russian official threaten a NATO country or Ukraine with nuclear annihilation. It feels like they are signaling something. We don't like that NATO countries are funding Ukraine's war, and we want it to stop, but we reserve the right to use North Korean and Chinese assets?

Ukraine war latest: Russia threatens Nato with nuclear strikes

Using threats of nuclear strikes as a "signal" is very problematic. For one thing these threats can be intended for "internal" consumption, demonstrating the "power" of the Russian state. Even if not so intended they MAY be so interpreted, destroying their value as a signal. These threats can be a "general" signal to NATO (and the US) not to mess with Russia and oppose its aims. They could also be attempts to sow discord and uncertainty in NATO, thus preventing adoption of a agreed-upon strategy. They could also be targeted to a particular action recently taken by a NATO member. Historically misinterpretation of "signals" has led to war or the prolongation of existing conflict. The Russian's "strategic ambiguity" with these threats is therefore inherently very dangerous. The more frequent the threats without clarification of actual intent can lead to "the west" becoming numb to them.
 
At present, IMO Russia's leadership (Putin) is quite aware of the dangers of nuclear conflict. They are not going to use a single nuclear weapon as a signal. They know that doing so may lead to massive retaliation, either intentionally or accidentally (due to not understanding it as a "signal"). Putin also knows (probably in detail) the results of Russian war games during the Cold War. The use of nuclear weapons almost inevitably leads to at least a proportionate nuclear response. Often it leads to a "more than proportionate" response to "signal" intent. Pretty soon, it inevitably becomes MAD.
 
There are IMO two real dangers in the current situation. The first is a situation in Russia that leads Putin to desperation where he feels he has nothing to lose. I am not sure that a disastrous defeat in Ukraine would do that. That just means the war goes on, and Ukraine is never in their wildest going to be a threat to dictate peace from the steps of the Kremlin. A coup and/or serious domestic unrest is a much more likely scenario leading to such desperation. The second unfortunately more probable threat is that Putin believes "the west" is "degenerate" and will be so fearful of MAD that Russia can wage a limited nuclear war with impunity. He may believe that leadership of "the west" now lacks the will that was present during the Cold War, creating a different correlation of forces. He is not there yet, but he may be much closer than any of us would wish. The most probable thing that may deter Putin from testing that hypothesis is the uncertainty of the order to use a nuclear weapon being promptly obeyed. The consequences of that could rapidly become dire for Putin.

[Goose]

I used to have an event manager who would screw up on occasion. I knew she screwed up because whenever she did, she wouldn't tell me about the screwup right away, she would have a senior partner send me an "unprompted" note lauding her skills and capabilities. It was always a "brace yourself" moment. 

I get that same feeling every time I read a senior Russian official threaten a NATO country or Ukraine with nuclear annihilation. It feels like they are signaling something. We don't like that NATO countries are funding Ukraine's war, and we want it to stop, but we reserve the right to use North Korean and Chinese assets?

Ukraine war latest: Russia threatens Nato with nuclear strikes

Using threats of nuclear strikes as a "signal" is very problematic. For one thing these threats can be intended for "internal" consumption, demonstrating the "power" of the Russian state. Even if not so intended they MAY be so interpreted, destroying their value as a signal. These threats can be a "general" signal to NATO (and the US) not to mess with Russia and oppose its aims. They could also be attempts to sow discord and uncertainty in NATO, thus preventing adoption of a agreed-upon strategy. They could also be targeted to a particular action recently taken by a NATO member. Historically misinterpretation of "signals" has led to war or the prolongation of existing conflict. The Russian's "strategic ambiguity" with these threats is therefore inherently very dangerous. The more frequent the threats without clarification of actual intent can lead to "the west" becoming numb to them.
 
At present, IMO Russia's leadership (Putin) is quite aware of the dangers of nuclear conflict. They are not going to use a single nuclear weapon as a signal. They know that doing so may lead to massive retaliation, either intentionally or accidentally (due to not understanding it as a "signal"). Putin also knows (probably in detail) the results of Russian war games during the Cold War. The use of nuclear weapons almost inevitably leads to at least a proportionate nuclear response. Often it leads to a "more than proportionate" response to "signal" intent. Pretty soon, it inevitably becomes MAD.
 
There are IMO two real dangers in the current situation. The first is a situation in Russia that leads Putin to desperation where he feels he has nothing to lose. I am not sure that a disastrous defeat in Ukraine would do that. That just means the war goes on, and Ukraine is never in their wildest going to be a threat to dictate peace from the steps of the Kremlin. A coup and/or serious domestic unrest is a much more likely scenario leading to such desperation. The second unfortunately more probable threat is that Putin believes "the west" is "degenerate" and will be so fearful of MAD that Russia can wage a limited nuclear war with impunity. He may believe that leadership of "the west" now lacks the will that was present during the Cold War, creating a different correlation of forces. He is not there yet, but he may be much closer than any of us would wish. The most probable thing that may deter Putin from testing that hypothesis is the uncertainty of the order to use a nuclear weapon being promptly obeyed. The consequences of that could rapidly become dire for Putin.