What is the basis for the Western leaders to believe that harsh economic sanctions will not lead to a nuclear war with Russia eventually?

Question

It is clear at the moment that no Western countries will send troops to Ukraine or set up a non-fly zone in Ukraine because they worry that will lead to a WWIII.

But Putin already said Western sanctions are akin to declaration of war. If Western countries keep adding harsh economic sanctions on Russia, which will destroy the economy of Russia (and Putin's administration hopefully) eventually, there is a possibility that they push Russia to a corner for no choice but fighting back with something and that something could be nuclear weapons.

What is the basis for the Western leaders to believe that emphasizing on harsh sanctions will not lead to a nuclear war with Russia eventually?

Answer 1

That's not necessarily the belief. When trying to make arrangements for future outcomes, anything can go wrong. The best that people can do is try to maximize probabilities of good outcomes and minimize probabilities of bad outcomes.

If it is estimated that the chain of possible escalations which would result from imposing sanctions is less likely to cause an all-out war than the chain of possible outcomes which would result from not imposing sanctions, then it is a better bet to impose sanctions.

Given that looking the other way has resulted in Putin escalating every time, and given that historically aggressors have not curtailed their own trajectory of escalations until they have been stopped by others, imposing a cost on an escalation seems to be a less risky medium-term strategy. Sanctions impose a cost without themself starting an all-out war. If the escalation continues, sanctions and other means will be used to impose further cost until the trajectory of escalations is stopped, and probably until it is reversed.

Answer 2

Western leaders are operating under the presumption that no leader will initiate the doomsday scenario of launching a nuclear attack unless there is a direct and personal threat against them. Direct military confrontation can easily produce such a threat: if, say, the leader comes to believe his conventional forces are failing and opponents are closing in on the capital. But economic sanctions don't pose a direct threat to a leader's life or position of power, and can always be rescinded as the conflict resolves. Further, the real threat from economic sanctions is from the Russian people themselves as they absorb the brunt of the sanctions. Whether that amounts to insurrection, coup plots, or attempts at assassination, Putin will be facing internal struggles in which nuclear attacks on foreign nations would be meaningless and impotent.

In short, economic sanctions are unlikely to produce the condition of existential threat that might provoke a leader to take extreme and likely suicidal measures against other nations. There's still a potential for it, if, say, Putin is megalomaniacal enough to try destroying the entire world rather than be deposed. But that would represent a level of cognitive disfunction that I have no reason to believe Putin has reached.

Answer 3

There is no basis whatsoever, except that that kind of lunacy wasn't seen during the entire duration of the Cold War, where the stakes were much higher and where the West was actively looking for an edge to take out the Soviet Union. And vice versa.

Chances are largely that he's bluffing, but there is no way to be 100% certain. What he wants to happen is 100% clear however: the West should lose its nerve and allow him to have his way.

Mind you, China would probably not take kindly either to him lobbing a bomb somewhere so would drop their so far limited support like a hot potato. No one gains if the planet gets reduced to cinders.

On the other hand, those threats also make it clear that both sides have to go back to their much more circumspect dance moves during said Cold War: NATO-on-Russia combat can't be allowed to happen.

You are also taking the "declaration of war" a bit out of context.

Putin was out doing a photo op with some stewardess trainees and speaking to his domestic audience. My bolding

Russian President Vladimir Putin has described sanctions imposed by Western nations over his invasion of Ukraine as "akin to a declaration of war".

"But thank God it has not come to that," he added.

Mr Putin also warned that any attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be seen as participation in the armed conflict.

Reminding us that a no-fly zone means war, on the other hand, is only reminding us of what we should already know.

Answer 4

But Putin already said Western sanctions are akin to declaration of war. If Western countries keep adding harsh economic sanctions on Russia, which will destroy the economy of Russia (and Putin's administration hopefully) eventually, there is a possibility that they push Russia to a corner for no choice but fighting back with something and that something could be nuclear weapons.

I believe the key point is that sanctions are not aimed at defeating or destroying Russia. They are merely aimed at making Russia uncomfortable, with the promise that the sanctions will ease or stop if Russia changes course. The sanctions aren't really an existential threat to Russia (or to Putin personally), so they don't put Russia in a position where it has nothing to lose and thus would really initiate a "doomsday" scenario like a nuclear exchange or even a widespread non-nuclear war. In such a scenario everyone loses; it's only value is deterring other actions before it actually comes to that point.

Putin is stating that he considers sanctions akin to a declaration of war in the hope of deterring some countries from imposing sanctions. But he cannot change the reality that for there to actually be war between Russia and the west somebody has to order their troops into a position where the other side will fight them (or launch missiles or bombers, etc). If he is really wants a state of war to exist if Russia is heavily sanctioned (as a way of deterring those sanctions being imposed in the first place), then that means he is going to have to invade or bomb the sanctioning countries, since they are unwilling to send their troops into Ukrainian or Russian territory. He can say that the sanctions are the declaration of war and he is just fighting the war to claim moral justification, but the state of war still will not exist without Putin actually making it happen.

The sanctioning countries do not believe Putin will actually do that, because they believe that Putin believes he (and Russia) will lose far more from such an action than he loses from the sanctions. That will remain so as long as Putin and Russia are not actually facing a real threat of destruction.

Answer 5

It's also important to understand that Russia starting a nuclear war, even on a small scale, would have dire consequences... for Russia. Some scientists war-gamed a Pakistan vs India nuclear war and while that war would only immediately affect that region, the after-effects would not be limited to just that area

The smoke would be heated by sun-light and lofted high into the stratosphere, where it could remain for years, since it doesn’t rain in the stratosphere.

And

A nuclear winter would halt agriculture around the world and produce famine for billions of people. Though not of the scale of the US-Russia nuclear war referenced earlier, all of the three scenarios described in the hypothetical India-Pakistan nuclear war just described would produce severe effects for periods of years

It's not hard to see an Eastern European limited-nuke war on this scale producing the same effects. The big difference here is ICBM warheads, which can reach anywhere in the world. The calculus of nuclear war here is unchanged: you can wipe anyone off the map, but it will be paid back in kind, and anyone who survives the initial strikes may find themselves in a bleak wasteland struggling to survive afterward. Even if it were only limited to one region of the Earth, the effects would be global.

Is it beyond Putin to still do this? No. But he wouldn't be able to use propaganda to escape its consequences either. This is the equivalent of a bloody nose to Putin, however. He knows the West is trying desperately to avoid a shooting war with him for that reason.

Answer 6

they push Russia to a corner for no choice but fighting back

There's always the choice of pulling the Russian army out of Ukraine, at which point we may expect that some of the sanctions against Russia will be lifted or replaced by some sort of oil-for-food programme.

Trying to completely destroy the economy of a country which owns nuclear weapons is indeed not reasonable. At the point where hunger riots start in Moscow there will be effectively little to lose for Putin in using nuclear weapons.

Answer 7

You claim that Putin might have nothing to lose. Wrong. Putin has an estimated $180-$200 billion stashed away in bank accounts, that's a lot to lose. And to be frank, if he uses nuclear weapons, my best advice to him would be to kill himself immediately. Otherwise consequences might be a lot worse.