Putin is not crazy
Russia, with a history of stark military signaling, is viewed as deliberate rather than irrational. The leadership speaks to a domestic audience that includes backers among oligarchs, a powerful ultranationalist media network, and key security and military figures. The aim is to mobilize those who sustain the regime, from political allies and industrial supporters to regional commanders and security services.
The plan involves mobilizing hundreds of thousands of reservists in response to battlefield setbacks. The regime cares about its image; how loss is framed and whether mobilization boosts morale. Yet promises that outpace reality can provoke discontent or even unrest.
Earlier this week Moscow faced private concerns from Beijing and public doubts from New Delhi. Alliances are not unconditional. Beijing will prioritize stability and growth, even while signaling quiet support for Moscow. Beijing’s stance underscores a broader calculation: peace and economic interests matter as much as diplomatic posture.
Russia’s path cannot be fixed solely by large-scale mobilization. Deeper problems persist: corruption and logistics strain the military, with fuel shortages and aging equipment magnifying challenges on the front lines. Perceived capability often weighs as heavily as actual hardware.
First mobilization in years
Today marks the first large-scale mobilization since the Second World War, framed by Moscow as a defensive move. The rhetoric of defending national honor clashes with the realities of a conflict that strains resources and public resilience. History shows that sending troops in big numbers yields mixed results, with some campaigns failing to deliver expected momentum.
Analysts suggest the goal may be to reinforce areas in a way that buys time rather than deliver an immediate battlefield breakthrough. Seven months of fighting has left Ukraine room to maneuver in the Donbas while awaiting reserves to become effective. Both sides focus on winter positioning, hoping to gain a strategic edge before harsher weather slows operations. The true impact of these reserves will unfold over months, not weeks, and the broader outlook remains a drawn-out struggle.
The United States and the European Union have criticized Moscow for resorting to nuclear rhetoric. Yet the temptation to use such language has lingered since the missteps around a rapid capture of Kyiv faltered. Public statements show strength while private diplomacy explores deterrence and negotiation. Historical examples reveal how nations mix public bravado with private caution in crises.
There are two layers to communication in these moments: open statements and the signals perceived behind the scenes. A memorable moment from the past—the encounter between a Soviet ambassador and Charles de Gaulle—remains a reminder that threats carry shared risk of mutual, even existential, consequences.
Russia is nuclear
Russia maintains a larger arsenal than the United States in total headcount, roughly 5,977 to 5,428, with France around 290 and the United Kingdom near 225. The possibility of devastating exchanges, even if not pursued, creates a climate of persistent caution among global leaders. The risk of misinterpretation or escalation remains a constant shadow over international diplomacy.
The danger today goes beyond a full-scale nuclear exchange. It includes scenarios such as tactical nuclear use on the battlefield, deterrence of civilians, or detonations in isolated locations that could cascade into wider political and humanitarian crises. A single early move could trigger chain reactions across borders, complicating alliance commitments and strategic calculations for NATO and partners.
The decision matrix would weigh civilian and military consequences, alliance obligations, and the unpredictable dynamics of allied voices, including China. The landscape resembles a chessboard where one move can alter the entire game. In such volatility, leaders must consider not only what is possible but what is prudent for long-term regional and global stability. The central question remains whether any action would decisively end a war or trigger deeper internal turmoil that would undermine the aggressor’s own stability. These choices define modern deterrence and set the risk calculus for every major power involved, with a global community watching closely as events unfold and memories of past catastrophes remain in the collective consciousness. This analysis draws on assessments from leading think tanks and policy researchers credited for their work.