It's a clever intimidation tactic, the idea of making parts of Ukraine 'officially' Russian and then claiming NATO would be threatening Russia directly by attacking them, but I don't see any reason why they'd go through with turning this into a real boots-on-the-ground conflict with the West. If they state outright that they're at war with NATO then there's no further reason for us to stop short of sending in our own troops, seeing as the whole reason we're not doing so at the moment is to avoid turning this into a wider war with Russia, and given that they're already struggling against the Ukrainian army alone there's no reason for them to want that.
As for all this talk of the West 'provoking' the apocalypse or whatever, it doesn't matter what Russian military law says about which weapons are allowed to be used when and whatnot. If they were going to launch a nuclear first strike against a NATO country, apart from it being an obvious suicide mission, the whole concept of rules would be off the table - at that point no-one's going to give a shit about who started it or whether it was technically allowed within the Russian legal framework. Bluntly, if they really wanted to kick off a global nuclear war for no reason except that they started a pointless conflict in Ukraine and now they're embarrassed, they could just do it, no need to come up with a BS cover story involving a fake referendum and how it's really us who are the aggressors here etc. The point of this rhetoric is to 1) rattle the domestic audience so they're convinced this extra troop mobilisation is necessary (it's totes because NATO are an eeeevil scary nuclear power out to destroy Russia and we have to defend ourselves, not that our 'special military operation' is going a bit shit and needs cannon fodder for reinforcement) and 2) hopefully rattle the Western public enough that general sentiment will turn against supplying military aid to Ukraine.
Would I personally sleep a bit easier at night if Liz Truss was like 'gwed Russia, we're out' and left Ukraine to fend for themselves, sure. Putin's not stupid, he knows which buttons to push (sorry) to ramp up people's anxiety. That's why military strategy is decided by experts based on real information, and not the emotional whims of a random science teacher in Liverpool who's just listened to a scary propaganda speech by the enemy leader. I don't know a lot about NATO, but I believe with 100% guaranteed confidence that they do not have one single senior decision maker who gives enough of a shit about the sovereignty of the Donbas region, or indeed Ukraine in general, to risk their own country getting blown up to uphold it. If they press ahead with supporting Ukraine despite Russia's threats it's because with all the concrete intelligence they have access to - which is a lot more than us plebs, unless any of yous on this thread are secretly top generals who spend their downtime bitching about internet celebs on Tattle - they believe it's the best way to ensure our own national security in the long run.
I mean, look at the facts we
do know:
- Russia are declaring a moderately unpopular troop deployment to be rolled out over several months, hardly the actions of a country that intends to end the world on Wednesday week.
- It's not the first time they've made ranty speeches about nuclear weapons, world war three and the actions of NATO leaders putting us all in danger when things aren't going to plan for them, and it didn't lead to wider escalation.
- It's not the first time they've suffered an embarrassing setback and had to quickly withdraw their troops - they went from 'ALL OF UKRAINE WILL BE OURS AND YOU CAN NEVER STOP US' to 'er, actually that stuff on the western side was just a distraction tactic and we only ever planned on taking these bits that were in our control anyway' in a matter of weeks, and it didn't lead to wider escalation.
- It's not the first time there's been anti-war protests in Russia and people scrambling to get out of the country - it happened when the invasion started too, and will have been the expected response to this announcement - and it didn't lead to wider escalation.
- Ukraine have previously used NATO-supplied weapons to attack Crimea, which Russia regard as their own territory, and IIRC even a few strategic targets within Russia itself, and it didn't lead to wider escalation.
- Russia have a great opportunity coming up to break European support, when winter comes and we're all paying £700 to heat our homes for half an hour - unless we stop shipping weapons over, in which case they might find a magical solution to the 'technical problems' with Nord Stream. The cold weather will also slow down the pace of Ukrainian advances and give Russia an opportunity to rest troops and re-strategise. The war isn't even close to over yet and both sides know it.
- They still have military options they haven't yet made use of, like deploying potentially millions of conscripts, that they're reluctant to go with because they'd be unpopular with the Russian public. Well, it's probably safe to assume that starting a nuclear war in their own country would be a lot less popular than that.
There's probably loads more I haven't thought of, those are just what occurred to me in five minutes as a total non-expert who hasn't even been following things that closely. Absolutely nothing points towards them imminently intending to start a nuclear war with NATO, IMO, but it's very much in their interests to make us wonder whether they just
might be that crazy.
Finally, if you're anxious try to stop doomscrolling Twitter. There's sometimes good analysis, but equally at times like this it's always been full of propagandists with bad intentions and extremely online types who think they know more than the genuine experts, shouting about how the end is nigh. This is just their latest thing to focus on, after the 'omicron variant wipes out humanity' threat never materialised.
ETA: jeez, that was a bit longer than I thought. Sorry