From my perspective as a Russian, the idea that nuclear weapons are a reliable deterrent doesn’t seem entirely convincing. In practice, they mostly represent a kind of mutually destructive option - if you attack us, everyone loses. But it’s hard to imagine any leadership actually using that unless total destruction is already unavoidable.

We have nuclear weapons, but their practical value feels uncertain. Our adversaries still apply pressure and often seem to hold the initiative, likely because they assume that using nuclear weapons would amount to self-destruction and therefore remains unlikely. That, in turn, creates space for them to gradually increase pressure step by step, without seriously expecting a nuclear response at each stage. Even in a scenario of a large-scale NATO attack, with fighter jets over Moscow, I’m not sure Russia would actually resort to nuclear use.

Because of this, I’ve never fully understood the argument that NATO countries would avoid attacking Russia solely because of its nuclear arsenal, or that Russia shouldn’t worry about NATO expansion. Relying on guaranteed mutual destruction as the main safeguard against invasion doesn’t seem entirely convincing to me.