Why didn't Russia use nukes in Syria?

Putin trolls can't say

Over the last few months we've had Putin supporters telling us that NATO countries need to stop arming Ukraine, or Russia will use nukes.

My question to these people is: When rebels backed by NATO member Turkey deposed the Russian-backed Assad government in Syria, why didn't Russia use nukes then?

After all, Turkey doesn't have them, so it would not be able to respond in kind, and Russia certainly has the capability to nuke Ankara or Istanbul.

We might also ask:

• When Finland and Sweden joined NATO, yet another of Russia's supposed "red lines", why didn't Putin use nukes then?

• When Turkey's ally Azerbaijan invaded Russia's ally Armenia, why didn't Putin use nukes then?

• Why hasn't Russia used nukes against Ukraine during their 1000+ day "special military operation"?

• Why hasn't Russia used nukes against Western countries arming Ukraine during the special military operation?

• When Israel attacked Russia's friend Iran, why didn't Putin use nukes then?

In all cases the answer is because it wouldn't be in Putin's interests to do so. There are lots of reasons why this is so, but they all boil down to creating an unpredictable and unstable situation where lots of things could happen.

Consider that the officers and soldiers controlling the nuclear weapons might refuse to obey any orders to use them. They all know how dangerous these weapons are in that they might invite retaliation against Russia, possibly resulting in the deaths of the soldiers and all their families and friends. Once soldiers stop obeying a government, that government is at risk of soon becoming an ex-government.

Or people at the top of Russia's military and security establishment might decide Putin's a dangerous liability and remove him. I will note that the last time Russia was losing a big war, in 1917, they got rid of their leader then, and later killed him.

Then, if a nuclear missile is fired, the bomb might embarrassingly fizzle. Given what we know of Russian corruption and incompetence this would be hardly surprising. It would make Putin look bad which may cause the Russian military/security establishment to decide he's a liability. Anything that makes Putin look weak, incompetent or a liability makes it more likely he is ousted.

If a missile is fired and does go off, expect near universal condemnation from around the world. World leaders in all countries want to continue being leaders, which won't happen if the world is destroyed and they are dead. And if a bomb is used against anyone able to react in kind -- such as NATO or Israel -- expect retaliation. Maybe Russia's elites would remove Putin to prevent any such retaliation, given that they want themselves and Russia to continue existing.

In short, use of nukes carries a serious risk of Putin being deposed and dead shortly thereafter. Which is why he'd only use them if he thought not using them would result in his death.

Yes, Russia would very likely use nukes if they faced a full-scale invasion from NATO and Moscow was under threat. They'd probably also use them if the event of a full-scale invasion from China and the Russian far east was under threat. But it is extremely unlikely that Russia will use nukes against the West if the West continues to help Ukraine; if Russia was going to do that, they've had over 1000 days to do so.