There are many that think Putin will be pressed into using some form of nuclear device in Ukraine….and then possibly onto the rest of the world.

Is that fear universal?

What does the average Russian think?

The results of survey was published in “New Voice Of Ukraine”

The survey says that 9% of Russians, asked whether the Russian leadership is ready to launch a nuclear strike on Ukraine, said “definitely yes,” and 20% said “rather yes,”, while 32% said “rather no,” 28% said “definitely no,” and 12% “hesitated to answer.”

In addition, 29% of respondents believe that the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine is justified, while 56% said the use of this type of weapon could not be justified.

On March 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.

Earlier, Director of National Intelligence in the Biden administration, Avril Haines, reported that Russia is unlikely to launch a nuclear strike, according to the White House.

Now is this a propaganda piece or a true survey that Ukraine somehow got their hands on to use for news and support?

I found lots of opinion piece on the possibility of the use of nukes but nothing along the lines of this ‘survey’….for now I am skeptical that this is an accurate depiction of the Russian people and their thoughts on the possibility of the use nukes in Ukraine.

On another thought….did Russia ever move nukes into their ally, Belarus?

I personally do not think Putin will use nukes….but that could change if and when Putin becomes desperate.

But just in case here are 3 scenarios that could answer that question…..as published in Politico….

Scenario 1: Remote atmospheric test

Least provocative would be Putin’s resumption of above-ground nuclear testing — by detonating a low-yield nuclear warhead high above Novaya Zemlya, the old Soviet test site in the Arctic, for example. While both the actual damage on the ground and radioactive fallout would be negligible, the psychological effect could be enormous: It would be the first nuclear explosion by a superpower since nuclear testing ended in 1992, and the first bomb detonated in the atmosphere by either the U.S. or Russia after such tests were outlawed by treaty in 1963. It would also be a potent reminder that Putin has tactical nuclear weapons in abundance — about 2,000 by last count — and is prepared to use them.

Scenario 2: Atmospheric detonation above Ukraine

A more provocative demonstration would be an ultra-high-altitude explosion of a more powerful weapon over Ukraine itself. In a 1962 test, the U.S. detonated a 1.4-megaton H-bomb in the mid-Pacific, 250 miles above the Earth. The resulting electromagnetic pulse unexpectedly knocked out streetlights and disrupted telephone service in Hawaii, 900 miles distant. A similarly powerful explosion above Kyiv would not only be visually spectacular but would likely plunge the capital into prolonged darkness and silence by shorting out computers, cellphones and other electronics. EMP effects might also extend into NATO member countries. But the extent of damage from the pulse is unpredictable, and Russian communications could also be affected.

Scenario 3: Ground explosion in Ukraine

Most dangerous — and, for that reason, perhaps least likely — would be using a tactical nuclear weapon to achieve a concrete military objective such as disrupting the delivery of weapons to Ukrainians fighting in a city like Mariupol. Alternatively, Putin might detonate a tactical nuclear warhead against military or logistics targets in sparsely populated western Ukraine — in the agricultural lands between Lviv and Kyiv, for instance — after warning people in the target area to evacuate. But even the smallest nuclear weapon would set fires over a wide area if detonated in the air. Depending on the height of the explosion, it could also spread lingering radioactive fallout, possibly extending into NATO member countries and Russia itself.

Any thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”