WW3 Fears Surge As Ukraine Warns Of Russian Nuke Use

Alarm raised in Kyiv

Ukraine has issued a stark warning that Vladimir Putin could resort to tactical nuclear weapons if his forces begin to lose ground in the war.

Senior Ukrainian commander Roman Kostenko said the threat is no longer theoretical, arguing that Moscow may escalate dramatically under pressure.

Tactical nukes in focus

Kostenko warned that Russia could deploy battlefield nuclear weapons with yields ranging from several to dozens of kilotons.

Potential targets, he said, include military bases, troop concentrations, infrastructure hubs and even major cities — a move that would mark the most dangerous escalation since the conflict began.

Push for national readiness

In response, Ukrainian officials are seeking to ramp up preparedness. Kostenko revealed plans for new legislation that would treat nuclear, chemical and biological threats as a standalone national security priority.

The goal, he said, is to ensure Ukraine is fully equipped to respond if such weapons are used.

Escalation on the battlefield

The warning comes as Volodymyr Zelenskyy signalled a “new stage” in Ukraine’s military campaign aimed at weakening Russia’s war machine.

Ukrainian forces have reportedly struck key energy infrastructure deep inside Russia, including a major oil transit hub in Perm — attacks designed to disrupt supply lines and economic capacity.

Kremlin fury grows

Moscow has reacted angrily to the strikes, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov branding them “terrorist attacks.”

Russia has also scaled back elements of its Victory Day military display, citing the “current operational situation” — a sign of mounting strain as the war intensifies.

A dangerous threshold

Western analysts have long warned that Russia’s doctrine allows for limited nuclear use under extreme conditions, particularly if the state faces what it perceives as an existential threat.

While there is no confirmation that such a move is imminent, Ukraine’s warning underscores growing fears that the conflict could cross a catastrophic line.

Brinkmanship returns

For now, the nuclear threat remains a scenario rather than a reality — but the rhetoric is hardening on all sides.

With battlefield pressure rising and both nations escalating attacks, the risk of miscalculation is increasing, fuelling renewed global anxiety about a conflict that could spiral far beyond its current borders.

SOURCE

Just now, Social Media said:

While there is no confirmation that such a move is imminent,

The use of nukes is nowhere near imminent because Russia is nowhere near to losing the war

They continue to advance slowly but surely, while being a paper tiger without washing machines 😂

There has been such talk since Russia invaded. It is no more likely now than then.

"Battlefield nukes" is a misnomer. If they exist, there would be devastating effects for both the shooter and the shot.

Remember, Hiroshima was just 50 kilotons.

Even so, would the Ukrainians just surrender. I don't think so. Russia would have to obliterate every Ukrainian.

Sounds like the little fellas been on the bugle again. Paranoia run amok.

Just now, unblocktheplanet said:

There has been such talk since Russia invaded. It is no more likely now than then.

"Battlefield nukes" is a misnomer. If they exist, there would be devastating effects for both the shooter and the shot.

Remember, Hiroshima was just 50 kilotons.

Even so, would the Ukrainians just surrender. I don't think so. Russia would have to obliterate every Ukrainian.

Russia has 10Kt weapons available to it (eg SS-26, SSC-7, SSC-8, plus gravity bombs). Complete destruction in a half mile area, major destruction in 1 mile diameter, fallout extending to 6 miles. However, in reality, Russia has "dial-a-yield" capability meaning they can goto 0.5KT yields for specific targets.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastating, but don't forget these were cities with extensive wooden buildings, rather than a full concrete and brick city. Our view has been somewhat skewed by that, and Cold War descriptions of what a 100Kt bomb will do to a city like London.

A 1Kt tactical weapon would produce a 150-200 meter fire ball, a few blocks utterly destroyed. A blast zone of upto 1 km diameter, with extensive damage to buulding, Many deaths, mostly due to burns.

Upto about 1.5kms out, mostly deaths due to collapsing buildings, building rendered unsafe.

2-3Kms out, light damage, mostly glass, most injuries due to flying debris.

Just now, Roadsternut said:

Russia has 10Kt weapons available to it (eg SS-26, SSC-7, SSC-8, plus gravity bombs). Complete destruction in a half mile area, major destruction in 1 mile diameter, fallout extending to 6 miles. However, in reality, Russia has "dial-a-yield" capability meaning they can goto 0.5KT yields for specific targets.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastating, but don't forget these were cities with extensive wooden buildings, rather than a full concrete and brick city. Our view has been somewhat skewed by that, and Cold War descriptions of what a 100Kt bomb will do to a city like London.

A 1Kt tactical weapon would produce a 150-200 meter fire ball, a few blocks utterly destroyed. A blast zone of upto 1 km diameter, with extensive damage to buulding, Many deaths, mostly due to burns.

Upto about 1.5kms out, mostly deaths due to collapsing buildings, building rendered unsafe.

2-3Kms out, light damage, mostly glass, most injuries due to flying debris.

Okay, and those "conquered" places will not be inhabitable for how many years, how many cancers in the fallout zone aso. The Hiroshima & Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hospitals still have patients 80 years later.

The effects are far-ranging and long. Russia would be nuts to use any kind of nukes, big or small. In reality, they're all big.

Just now, unblocktheplanet said:

Okay, and those "conquered" places will not be inhabitable for how many years, how many cancers in the fallout zone aso. The Hiroshima & Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hospitals still have patients 80 years later.

The effects are far-ranging and long. Russia would be nuts to use any kind of nukes, big or small. In reality, they're all big.

Why would the attacker care about any of that. You think that conventional bombing or fires in any modern city don't cause cancers or chronic conditions. You think survivors of Hiroshima are the only people with continuing health problems from WW2? Any kinds of carpet bombing of a modern city will result in the release of innumerable toxic substances into the environment, both the products of combustion, plus things like asbestos, metals. 911 lead to 8000 cancer cases, and 2000 cancer deaths, because of just two buildings coming down, as New Yorkers were exposed to a soup of toxins. Ukraine is going to see this in years to come just through the Russian use of missiles like Iskanders, against civilian targets.

As for being rendered "uninhabitable" from a 1Kt bomb, rubbish. Hiroshima restored power services by November 1945, rubble was cleared by March 1946. The city had returned to pre-war levels by 1958, and the city was fully restored by the 1960s. London still had bomb sites into the 1970s.

Hiroshima had restored basic functuinality as a city by the early 1950s. Dresden didn't become a functional city until the early 60s. Kessal suffered a similar percentage of destruction to Hiroshima, and was restored to functionality by the mid-60s. So actually, for a 10Kt type bomb, its not the case the remediation is much much longer compared to conventional munitions. And compared to 1945, in 2026, there is much more advanced technology to identify and remove.

The danger about understanding the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs on long term health effects is there is a confusion between the risk of exposure to radiation and the risk of explosure afterwards when exposed to the normal toxins in a destroyed city.

The total number of solid cancers directly attributable to the Hiroshim bamb, by 2000, stood at 1,262 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3907953/,). Leukemia cases amounted to a few hundred, peaking in the 1950s. No significant increase in cancer risk among the Children of survivors (https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20immediate%20concerns%20after,continue%20to%20rise%20from%20their%20past%20destruction.).

If a 1Kt bomb was dropped on central London, taking account of the higher population density of the city compared to Hiroshima, like radiation will cause 3-4000 excess cancers. The reason why that seems low is because most people exposed to the radiation will be dead due to other reasons.

That kind of radiation risk falls away quite quickly. After that, it becomes more akin to an industrial pollution occupational risk. If a city like London was attacked with a 1Kt bomb, life will still go on. Expect a reaction similar to Pripyat, following the Chernobyl explosion. The day after, 50,000 people were evacuated. They were exposed to Iodine-131, raising their risk of thyroid cancer. The long term conclusion was the group at the time with the biggest risk were children, but the cancers they developed were treatable, overall increased risk to the population were slight (https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-years-an-oncologist-s-perspective/). The group most exposed were the firefighters and squaddies, but their risk was radiation poisoning accounting for the majority of deaths.

In the case of London, a limited attack on Westminster, beyond the initial deaths, the general population of Greater London will be evacuated . 50% of households in London own a car, compared to 80% overall, which aids in evacuation, as the roads are less likely to be clogged with fleeing citizens (they will be), but more of the population can be evacuated through the functioning public transport system. Euston, Kings Cross, Paddington, St Pancras-Charing Cross are likely t be heavily damaged, and likely not functional. Victoria and Waterloo will be damaged but functional, and the population South of the River can evacuate from these, and the main Bus terminal, as well as normal road transport to the South coast. Liverpool Street, Fenchurch street; hardly touched. Good capacity to evacuate to Essex, plent of space for evacuees, taking over used and disused airbases. City Airport will still be operational. During COVID19, the RAF did touch and go Starlifter and C130 runs. London EXCEL would be still functional; excellent connections to Tower Hill, and obviously the River, allowing the movement of Central London casualties to Excel, where the Nightingale plans would be brushed off, and it converted into a Birmingham NEC style triaging area (COVID EXCEL plan was it was to become a dying house); deliver initial treatment, triage, tag and evacuate those who are saveable.

Many Greater London residents will be told to shelter in place, have a brew if they still have power, so not everyone has to go. It took the Japanese 2 days to shift 160,000 residents from Fukoshima.

If we were assuming Westminster was a target, then in the area with moderate damage, there will be about 40,000 actual residents, and maybe 150,000 commuters. Most of the London population is not in the middle. Even moving 190,000 seems very diable considering the Japanese precedence.

But there will be a huge number of rescue workers, trying to find trapped office workers in the centre, and trying to make safe destroyed buildings, as well as clearing thoroughfares. Like Chernobyl, these guys will have a high fatality rate, but their greatest risk is from toxic building materials not radiation. And it would be the same risk is somehow 20 787s were hijacked to flatten the centre.

The picture painted in films like Threads, which some of us grew up with, was based on a mass attack of the UK, and a complete collapse of government, and focused on survivors in the major cities, where no one was able to move out of bombed areas. An interesting different treatment is in the film "The Days Ahead"; describing 3 groups and how they prepared. Its a little dull, but perhaps that's how it would be.

Tactical weapons were developed by NATO as a way to stem a Warsaw Pact advance. They were accurate and intended to be used against logistical hubs in the WP's rear, essentially cutting off reinforcements, aummunition and fuel supplies to advancing units. BAOR was supposed to hold fuel depots in West Germany, and eventually stop them. The defence plan hinged on the WP running out of fuel. Their plans hinged on seizing NATO fuel dumps rather than repositioning their own fuel stations (NATO, evidenced by Gulf War 1, put a lot of effort into developing air transportable fuel supplies). Deployment of Pershing 1 caused the Soviets to <deleted> themselves, as this was exactly the sort of weapon NATO would use to interdict Soviet units. At the time, all the Soviets really had was strategic weapons, and the threshold for use was high. Even with low yields, they couldn't really have any use as they were inaccurate. You don't need to be accurate if the intent is to level Brussels.

The danger now is we have a pair of leaders with access to tatical nuclear weapons, where the consequences of using them is actually quite low. If the Russians used a tactical nuke against some Polish town that no one in the UK or US had heard of, but which was a railhead being used by Ukraine for resupply, would that necessitate a like response? Ordinarily, it should but now there is uncertainty, because of failing Western leadership, leaving an element of doubt.

Putin calculated in Feb 2022 that the West would not respond militarily. He was right. But his hubris meant his attack failed because the Ukrainians fought back, in many ways, like lions. The Battle of Hostomel Airport is a classic example; the Russian made a air assault with crack troops, and the Ukrainians fought back and comprehensively defeated them.

Putin's miscalculation was evident through his public pronouncements about the Ukraine. He has a frankly racist view of Ukrainians. He doesn't believe they ahve a real culture. He doesn't believe its a real country. He didn't believe the Ukrainians would fight for a country and ideal that in his view doesn't exist. It was a mistake. History will show that maybe the indicator that he should have noticed was the Russian invasion of Crimea. One version is that th Ukrainians gave up without a fight, as they didn't care. Another view was the Ukrainian troops held out as long as they could, and took the sensible and measured decision to leave with their heads held high. Ukrainian troops, unarmed, standing their ground, took balls.

(I wonder what happened to the Ukrainian Major who was a Russian national, who took his oath seriously).

So yes. It would be a stupid decision to drop a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city, but history is full of leaders struck by stupidity, misclaculation and distraction. It would be a step into the unknown for the world. Would such an attack make the entire world recoil with horror, bring down Putin because of Russian disgust. Or would it be yet another type of warfare that is normalised.

If the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran, its a racing certainty that Ukraine will experience a similar Russian attack. A Rubicon will have been crossed. I am confident that many Russians would actually be disgusted by such an atrocity against fellow Slavs, and it would be the end of Putin in a Palace Coup.

But if America was to use such weapons against Iran? Based on a straw poll of this forum, I am not convinced that the majority of Americans would find that a repulsive act. I think many will rationalise it, justify it to themselves. They've moved from starting this war as some sort of war of liberation, that it was all to save Iranians, to "bomb them to the stone age", they basically rally to the flag when it comes to foreigners. But both sides can miscalculate. The Iranians think they can hold out to the American midterms, and that somehow that will have a benefit for them. The Americans also have a similar deadline, meaning they need a resolution before those elections, which can drive them towards what will be a terrible and rash decision. Terrible for Iranians, but terrible for the US's standing on the world power (eg utterly end them as a world power, it will be inevitable it will accelerate the closure of US overseas bases, severely restricting their ability to project power, leaving them with inordinantly large standing land forces unable to anywhere except North or South). They will become more like China now; China has very large military forces, but which only have regional power, and which are largely now used in a COIN role domestically, to repress the population.

I'm thinking about this risk in perhaps a simplistic way, but here goes.

Putin knows if he loses his war of choice in a way he can't paint as a win with propaganda he will be made literally dead.

In my view. that's almost happened already. Anyone following the news closely will know what I mean.

So what is Putin to do?

Try to save his Russkie arse with nukes hoping Ukraine surrenders and the rest of the world lets him get away with it?

Well that's not likely to work. If he does that even China, Iran, and India will drop him. there will be a response from the west of unknown nature, but starting this risks nuclear winter escalation (yes even from one "small" nuke.

But bad a choice as this is, it may be Putin's best chance if his only goal is to save himself (rather than Russia).

So I think he at least might try to do this, and then the question will be whether his orders will be followed. Other Russians know there is more to their country than one man.

If you see the toxic clouds from the lastest ukranian attacks ,

many will be at risc of cancer or other health problems.

So Russia should use small nukes .

I'd used neutron bombs , much cleaner.

Just now, Roadsternut said:

Why would the attacker care about any of that. You think that conventional bombing or fires in any modern city don't cause cancers or chronic conditions. You think survivors of Hiroshima are the only people with continuing health problems from WW2? Any kinds of carpet bombing of a modern city will result in the release of innumerable toxic substances into the environment, both the products of combustion, plus things like asbestos, metals. 911 lead to 8000 cancer cases, and 2000 cancer deaths, because of just two buildings coming down, as New Yorkers were exposed to a soup of toxins. Ukraine is going to see this in years to come just through the Russian use of missiles like Iskanders, against civilian targets.

As for being rendered "uninhabitable" from a 1Kt bomb, rubbish. Hiroshima restored power services by November 1945, rubble was cleared by March 1946. The city had returned to pre-war levels by 1958, and the city was fully restored by the 1960s. London still had bomb sites into the 1970s.

Hiroshima had restored basic functuinality as a city by the early 1950s. Dresden didn't become a functional city until the early 60s. Kessal suffered a similar percentage of destruction to Hiroshima, and was restored to functionality by the mid-60s. So actually, for a 10Kt type bomb, its not the case the remediation is much much longer compared to conventional munitions. And compared to 1945, in 2026, there is much more advanced technology to identify and remove.

The danger about understanding the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs on long term health effects is there is a confusion between the risk of exposure to radiation and the risk of explosure afterwards when exposed to the normal toxins in a destroyed city.

The total number of solid cancers directly attributable to the Hiroshim bamb, by 2000, stood at 1,262 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3907953/,). Leukemia cases amounted to a few hundred, peaking in the 1950s. No significant increase in cancer risk among the Children of survivors (https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20immediate%20concerns%20after,continue%20to%20rise%20from%20their%20past%20destruction.).

If a 1Kt bomb was dropped on central London, taking account of the higher population density of the city compared to Hiroshima, like radiation will cause 3-4000 excess cancers. The reason why that seems low is because most people exposed to the radiation will be dead due to other reasons.

That kind of radiation risk falls away quite quickly. After that, it becomes more akin to an industrial pollution occupational risk. If a city like London was attacked with a 1Kt bomb, life will still go on. Expect a reaction similar to Pripyat, following the Chernobyl explosion. The day after, 50,000 people were evacuated. They were exposed to Iodine-131, raising their risk of thyroid cancer. The long term conclusion was the group at the time with the biggest risk were children, but the cancers they developed were treatable, overall increased risk to the population were slight (https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2021/chernobyl-at-35-years-an-oncologist-s-perspective/). The group most exposed were the firefighters and squaddies, but their risk was radiation poisoning accounting for the majority of deaths.

In the case of London, a limited attack on Westminster, beyond the initial deaths, the general population of Greater London will be evacuated . 50% of households in London own a car, compared to 80% overall, which aids in evacuation, as the roads are less likely to be clogged with fleeing citizens (they will be), but more of the population can be evacuated through the functioning public transport system. Euston, Kings Cross, Paddington, St Pancras-Charing Cross are likely t be heavily damaged, and likely not functional. Victoria and Waterloo will be damaged but functional, and the population South of the River can evacuate from these, and the main Bus terminal, as well as normal road transport to the South coast. Liverpool Street, Fenchurch street; hardly touched. Good capacity to evacuate to Essex, plent of space for evacuees, taking over used and disused airbases. City Airport will still be operational. During COVID19, the RAF did touch and go Starlifter and C130 runs. London EXCEL would be still functional; excellent connections to Tower Hill, and obviously the River, allowing the movement of Central London casualties to Excel, where the Nightingale plans would be brushed off, and it converted into a Birmingham NEC style triaging area (COVID EXCEL plan was it was to become a dying house); deliver initial treatment, triage, tag and evacuate those who are saveable.

Many Greater London residents will be told to shelter in place, have a brew if they still have power, so not everyone has to go. It took the Japanese 2 days to shift 160,000 residents from Fukoshima.

If we were assuming Westminster was a target, then in the area with moderate damage, there will be about 40,000 actual residents, and maybe 150,000 commuters. Most of the London population is not in the middle. Even moving 190,000 seems very diable considering the Japanese precedence.

But there will be a huge number of rescue workers, trying to find trapped office workers in the centre, and trying to make safe destroyed buildings, as well as clearing thoroughfares. Like Chernobyl, these guys will have a high fatality rate, but their greatest risk is from toxic building materials not radiation. And it would be the same risk is somehow 20 787s were hijacked to flatten the centre.

The picture painted in films like Threads, which some of us grew up with, was based on a mass attack of the UK, and a complete collapse of government, and focused on survivors in the major cities, where no one was able to move out of bombed areas. An interesting different treatment is in the film "The Days Ahead"; describing 3 groups and how they prepared. Its a little dull, but perhaps that's how it would be.

Tactical weapons were developed by NATO as a way to stem a Warsaw Pact advance. They were accurate and intended to be used against logistical hubs in the WP's rear, essentially cutting off reinforcements, aummunition and fuel supplies to advancing units. BAOR was supposed to hold fuel depots in West Germany, and eventually stop them. The defence plan hinged on the WP running out of fuel. Their plans hinged on seizing NATO fuel dumps rather than repositioning their own fuel stations (NATO, evidenced by Gulf War 1, put a lot of effort into developing air transportable fuel supplies). Deployment of Pershing 1 caused the Soviets to <deleted> themselves, as this was exactly the sort of weapon NATO would use to interdict Soviet units. At the time, all the Soviets really had was strategic weapons, and the threshold for use was high. Even with low yields, they couldn't really have any use as they were inaccurate. You don't need to be accurate if the intent is to level Brussels.

The danger now is we have a pair of leaders with access to tatical nuclear weapons, where the consequences of using them is actually quite low. If the Russians used a tactical nuke against some Polish town that no one in the UK or US had heard of, but which was a railhead being used by Ukraine for resupply, would that necessitate a like response? Ordinarily, it should but now there is uncertainty, because of failing Western leadership, leaving an element of doubt.

Putin calculated in Feb 2022 that the West would not respond militarily. He was right. But his hubris meant his attack failed because the Ukrainians fought back, in many ways, like lions. The Battle of Hostomel Airport is a classic example; the Russian made a air assault with crack troops, and the Ukrainians fought back and comprehensively defeated them.

Putin's miscalculation was evident through his public pronouncements about the Ukraine. He has a frankly racist view of Ukrainians. He doesn't believe they ahve a real culture. He doesn't believe its a real country. He didn't believe the Ukrainians would fight for a country and ideal that in his view doesn't exist. It was a mistake. History will show that maybe the indicator that he should have noticed was the Russian invasion of Crimea. One version is that th Ukrainians gave up without a fight, as they didn't care. Another view was the Ukrainian troops held out as long as they could, and took the sensible and measured decision to leave with their heads held high. Ukrainian troops, unarmed, standing their ground, took balls.

(I wonder what happened to the Ukrainian Major who was a Russian national, who took his oath seriously).

So yes. It would be a stupid decision to drop a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city, but history is full of leaders struck by stupidity, misclaculation and distraction. It would be a step into the unknown for the world. Would such an attack make the entire world recoil with horror, bring down Putin because of Russian disgust. Or would it be yet another type of warfare that is normalised.

If the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran, its a racing certainty that Ukraine will experience a similar Russian attack. A Rubicon will have been crossed. I am confident that many Russians would actually be disgusted by such an atrocity against fellow Slavs, and it would be the end of Putin in a Palace Coup.

But if America was to use such weapons against Iran? Based on a straw poll of this forum, I am not convinced that the majority of Americans would find that a repulsive act. I think many will rationalise it, justify it to themselves. They've moved from starting this war as some sort of war of liberation, that it was all to save Iranians, to "bomb them to the stone age", they basically rally to the flag when it comes to foreigners. But both sides can miscalculate. The Iranians think they can hold out to the American midterms, and that somehow that will have a benefit for them. The Americans also have a similar deadline, meaning they need a resolution before those elections, which can drive them towards what will be a terrible and rash decision. Terrible for Iranians, but terrible for the US's standing on the world power (eg utterly end them as a world power, it will be inevitable it will accelerate the closure of US overseas bases, severely restricting their ability to project power, leaving them with inordinantly large standing land forces unable to anywhere except North or South). They will become more like China now; China has very large military forces, but which only have regional power, and which are largely now used in a COIN role domestically, to repress the population.

What amazes me is that you can actually consider this as a feasibility when it involves human beings. Sounds like Dr. Strangelove to me. I trust the Russians aren't that stupid.

I don't think you can compare nukes--the ultimate weapon--to first responders, or conventional bombing.

Edited May 3May 3 by unblocktheplanet
add

Just now, unblocktheplanet said:

What amazes me is that you can actually consider this as a feasibility when it involves human beings. Sounds like Dr. Strangelove to me. I trust the Russians aren't that stupid.

I don't think you can compare nukes--the ultimate weapon--to first responders, or conventional bombing.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

You lack reading comprehension. I am not <deleted> Comparing Firemen to Nuclear Weapons, you silly <deleted>.

I'm explaining, as you seem to have half a brain, that Putin is that stupid. Trump is that stupid.

You have too much faith in the Russians, possibly because you are a Communist loyalist.

Neither leader has served in the military, in combat.

Personally, I think you will have to deal with, in the next 6 years, the idea that low yield nuclear weapons will be a normalised part of combat. Neither you nor me can do anything about that.

A 1Kt is not the ultimate weapon.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'm thinking about this risk in perhaps a simplistic way, but here goes.

Putin knows if he loses his war of choice in a way he can't paint as a win with propaganda he will be made literally dead.

In my view. that's almost happened already. Anyone following the news closely will know what I mean.

So what is Putin to do?

Try to save his Russkie arse with nukes hoping Ukraine surrenders and the rest of the world lets him get away with it?

Well that's not likely to work. If he does that even China, Iran, and India will drop him. there will be a response from the west of unknown nature, but starting this risks nuclear winter escalation (yes even from one "small" nuke.

But bad a choice as this is, it may be Putin's best chance if his only goal is to save himself (rather than Russia).

So I think he at least might try to do this, and then the question will be whether his orders will be followed. Other Russians know there is more to their country than one man.

Russia operates two ways to launch nuclear weapons.

Since 2020, the decision to launch rests with the Russian President.

Cheget is a suitcase that contains equipment for the President to transmit orders to launch to the General Staff.

The General Staff then sends authorisation codes to individual units to execute

Or Perimetr is used, which allows the General Staff to completely by thesese command posts, at least the land based ones.

In feb 2022, Russia's strategic missile forces went on "enhanced combat" duties. Analysts interpreted this to mean that Putin had opened Cheget.

The Russian General Staff is not a group of Russian brass who have risen to the top through capability and competance. They are appointed based on loyalty. This is one of the reasons the Russian armed forces have performed poorly; the system doesn't reward competance. Zhukov was an aberration. His reward for defeating Germany was exile.

A refusal to follow orders will trigger a coup, and in a coup, those on the General Staff wont be sure who is put up against a wall and shot, in score settling.

Despite the Nuremburg trials, the military does follow orders, even when that includes atrocity. Expecting rebellion by officers on the basis of their military ethics training is wishful thinking, because Russian officers are not trained in the same way as Western militry is, where ethics training is a major part of their training. viz Syria. Russian officers were the ones behind barrel bombs. This was a war crime.

The US and Russian systems are based on the military following orders; in principle, American officers are only supposed to follow Lawful Orders, but recent controversy would suggest that when it comes to it officers will trust all orders to be Lawful.

The UK is different. The Prime Minister has sole authority, and issues orders directly to submarine commanders. In the event London is lost, the missile subs have Letters of Last Resort, which essentially is the PM's living will, which might include take them all out, sail to a US port, head to Australia, find a desert island and wait it out, or, use your own judgement.

The Russian General Staff are loyalists. Valery Gerasimov is still in post, despite a litany of plannng failures which should have ended his career.There is little to no evidence of Russian officers not following orders. The Wagner Coup, by irregulars, was because they felt the Russian Army wasn't going hard enough.

Originally, there was wishful thinking that Russian military professionals would put stop to Putin profligate use of their best kit and best men. But Putin has been in power so long, the Russian military leadership has been created in his image. In addition, Putin created Rosgvardiya; a national guard that answers directly to the President bypassing the Defence Ministry.

An example of the difference between the British and US forces can be seen in June 1999, Pristina Airport. General Wesley Clark ordered the British General, Mike Jackson, to seize it from the Russian forces, to overpower them, and destroy them. Jackson famously refused "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you". Captain James Blunt was on the ground in a light tank to manage the situation. Clark expected Jackson to respond like an American officer, and follow his orders. Jackson exercised British judgement. Clark lost his job. Jackson got the DSO and promotion to equivalent of 4 star.