"Every General Staff relies on the fact that if the enemy's intentions are unclear they should be interpreted as aggressive (otherwise, they could be late to respond)"…
Under these circumstances, there is no time evaluate the situation and the intention. Anything that can be characterized as a threat of nuclear attack against Russia should cause intercontinental missiles to be launched immediately. Otherwise, there is a high chance that they would be destroyed at their sites.Do you feel safer?
The limited (after the reduction according to the INF) amount of carriers and warheads leave no hope that there will be enough missiles for an adequate response after any disarming strike.
This increases the risk of nuclear confrontation up to the level of the 1980’s, when it was the highest in the history of USSR - US relations, except for the two critical weeks of the Cuban Missile Crisis, from October 15th to 28th, 1962. (That crisis, by the way, was provoked by the deployment of American medium-range ballistic missiles Jupiter in Turkey.)
NATO Missile Shield Is Practically Guaranteeing a Russian First Strike
Rostislav Ischenko, RIA NovostiTranslated by Julia Rakhmetova and Rhod Mackenzie
If the United States ever ends up stumbling into a major conventional or nuclear war with Russia, the culprit will likely be two military boondoggles that refused to die when their primary mission ended with the demise of the Soviet Union: NATO and the U.S. anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program.Consortium NewsEscalations in a New Cold War
Argues that the US and NATO needs to ramp up against a resurgent Russian military, in other words, a new Cold War and resultant arms race including nuclear.