If using a TNW is the answer, then the guys(girls... other) are asking the wrong question.
If the question is how to stop something, TNW's don't do that, they demand a response. That response doesn't have to be MAD immediately, but MAD is certainly closer to an outcome following the deliberate employment of a TNW or NBC.
If the question is to escalate to deescalate, then again it is not the answer, as it absolutely demands a response, and that response has to be such to be a deterrent to the next 2 kopek tyrant that gets their hand on a few rusty old warheads and has malcontent and evil in their heart.
If the question is to defend against an existential threat, then again, it is not the answer, it brings on a response that will lead to that outcome being accelerated.
In the last case, there is no existential threat to Russia, commentary follows:
the last one occurred due to the conniving of Russia to betray Poland in 1939, which led to the fairly obvious betrayal by their partner in crime, then making "Barbarossa" a new synonym for perfidy. The existential threat exists to Mr V.V. Putin, of his own making, announced by his own uttering and the flick of a pen on 24 Feb 2022. Having being outside of the SA loop due to his penchant to shoot messengers or to send them to improve the occupancy rates of the Lyubyanka, Vlad is now staring into the political abyss. His attendants have rather frequently stared into the abyss as well and ended up taking dirt naps. His army has lost a stunning number of unfortunates at his insistence, approaching 60,000 dead and thrice that with special parking permits. That takes talent to notch up such a score card. His latest efforts to add variously 300,000 or 1,200,000 more victims seems to be giving some headaches. 25% of the states in his "federation" are now unimpressed with V. Putin and his brilliant master plan. They don't get a free pass for sitting back idly while things were not going so badly, self interest reeks over the actions of the states involved, and the citizenry that were quite happy to sit back and watch Russian troops murder and rape in Bucha and hundreds of other locations, but become indignant when their own neck is on the line. If they are that concerned, then Ukraine can do with more volunteers, which to be fair, has occurred, Belarus citizens are fighting in Ukraine, they are fighting alongside Ukrainian defenders against Russia. The last dictator in Europe should take note, fealty to Russia is not universal in his own land of milk and honey
The use of a TNW doesn't have any obvious (there may be wild ass plays) outcome that doesn't include a massive and substantial response. That response is well within the NATO, US and Western defence capability to be given, to Russia's criminal presence in Ukraine, including the Crimea. They also make the United Nations either utterly irrelevant as it is established, (which led to NATO due to the limitations) or it obliges the UN to invoke the Article 27(3).
An abstaining member of the permanent security council has no veto authority....
UN Charter
The veto power originates in Article 27 of the
United Nations Charter, which states:
- Each member of the Security Council shall have a vote.
- Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
- Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
A negative vote from any of the permanent members will block the adoption of a draft resolution. However, a permanent member that abstains or is absent from the vote will not block a resolution from being passed.
Although the "power of veto" is not mentioned by name in the UN Charter, Article 27 requires concurring votes from the permanent members. For this reason, the "power of veto" is also referred to as the principle of "great power of unanimity" and the veto itself is sometimes referred to as the "great power veto"
Restated:" This means that in any non-procedural matter, a decision is made if two criteria are met. First, nine of the Council’s fifteen members must vote in favor of the resolution. Second, none of the P5 must vote “no”. A P5 member can show its disapproval either by abstaining from a vote or by voting no, effectively making a decision impossible. In other words, a P5 member cannot vote no and still allow the decision to pass. For the P5 a no vote and a veto are one and the same". [P5 refers to the 5 permanent members of the UNSC] In this case, a No by a P5 member defeats any resolution.
HOWEVER, where they abstain voluntarily they are showing disapproval, but that does not defeat the motion. Where they "shall abstain" they have no means to give a "No" vote and therefore they cannot veto any resolution. China is the wild card, and is not happy with Vlad, and has problems of their own that being friendly with the 95% of their trading partners that are not Russia may have some weight .
Is Russia a party to a conflict in Ukraine? Only one country has declared an intent to nuke another recently, that is a threat, which the UN Charter also considers as a matter of bad behaviour by a signatory state, so yes, irrespective of the "eloquent and insincere rhetoric" (AKA "BULL$HI!T") describing a criminal war of aggression as a "Special Military Operation.... ".
Is this correct? Recall the UN action in Korea, 1950? Russia was out to lunch and did not vote, they abstained by their actions to boycott the UN. That was defined as a voluntary abstention. Today, they are assuredly a party to the dispute in Ukraine, and have no right to vote on any related matter. How would China vote? Right now, they are not happy with the actions of Russia, and their rice bowl is being messed with. They may surprise. However, China is not a member of NATO, well not yet. They have no say on what NATO perceives to be an armed attack on a NATO state. Nordstream 1 & 2 may actually be considered to be that. The threats made towards the UK, and Baltic states by Vlad recently would suggest that Vlad is getting pretty desperate to expedite the termination of his term in office.
Not responding globally to an aggressive use of a WMD which a TNW is, would be an invitation for all rational nations to get their own stockpiles prepared, and where they are on hand, to use them to settle current grievances, as there is no downside. That is an invitation to the front seat of the demise of civilisation.
NATO is in a unique situation, where they are very close to and may have already been technically drawn into an article 5 condition this week. A simple and prompt change of situation arises from an emergency meeting of NATO (there isn't one already???) and consideration of admitting Ukraine immediately as a NATO member, or affording Article 5 protection to circumvent the threatened actions by Russia. Is that possible? Turkey may actually accept that now, they stand to lose with any further escalation in their backyard, particularly ones that involve nuclear weapons. Expect in all cases that Lloyds and other insurance underwriters are furiously determining how many cancellations of hull cover will be forthcoming; they will not accept anything in the Black Sea being an insurance risk, so shipping will cease going through the Bosphorus, that happens to portend a famine in N Africa and in the Middle East as a foreseeable consequence. More wheels to come off wagons there. Hungary is the anomaly in the heart of NATO at present, their government has a strong leaning towards Putin and his cretins at present, and that brings up the fundamental problem with NATO membership; it requires unanimity, and there is no means to avoid a recalcitrant individual state with the current charter. Hungary has no means to stop other NATO country actions however, so if Nordstream 1 is considered to have been an armed attack (demo charges) against a NATO state (the line was in part owned by Germany... and was a supply to Germany of national needs under a contract... ) then NATO rolling gear into Ukraine to support Ukraine could be seen as a defensive response. Not ideal but not impossible.
Vlad will chose some other option, and we will be surprised, but popping off a TNW will not occur without requiring a severe response, whatever form that incorporates. It is not going to be limited to a sharply worded letter to Lavrov, Mishustin, Medvedev, or Vlad; reading doesn't seem to be in their skill set, given their inability to colour within the lines of all of the treaties that Russia scribbles over like a blind drunk that fell into a vat of Smirnoff's antifreeze mixture.
Gonna be an interesting few days ahead.
Military Aviation: There is not much doubt that there is sufficient TLAM, and B-52's B-2's and F-35s to get a message to every Russian helmet and piece of gear that is currently illegally parked in Eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Apparently the sortie rate and accuracy that was shown in the sand pit in 1991 and 2003 didn't get any airtime in the USSR/CIS. Target intel is rather better than that today, and the IQ of the smart weapons has taken lots of remediation.