This article is absurd. They make a credible claim that nuclear deterrence through behavioral norms has failed, and then go on to conclude that the best alternative is ... Nuclear deterrence through behavioral norms. Has the author read their own article?
It’s conceivable that Russia could force the West to back out of the proxy war. But then they’d get proliferation in Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, and other places. And Usrael would very likely use nukes against Iranian missile cities. (Conversely, first use against Iran would give Russia license etc.) Apart from general global instability and uncertainty this might unleash.
So, it’s not hard to see why they haven’t—so far. And why they are pursuing their (slow and costly, sure) conventional military, economical, and demographic long-term neutering of Ukraine. And let’s not forget the enormous economic/budgetary cost to the EU.
Also, Russia retains a number of ways to escalate inside of Ukraine: bridges, dams, depopulation of frontline cities. China could finally abandon their stance of being mostly neutral.
The problem is that Ukraine/West keep escalating and the day when Russia’s calculus changes may yet come.
Since when has Ukraine's defense against the russian invasion been a "proxy war"? Your very first sentence destroyed any credibility the rest of your comment had (not that there was much worth reading anyway).
> The country that’s getting 55% of its state budget from the EU isn’t a proxy. Not to mention the munitions, the weapons, the training, and above all the access to the US’ trillion dollar ISR and satcom network.
If the Kremlin calculated that European countries would just back off it was a very bad call indeed.
Any reasonable leadership would have cut their losses yet here we are.
> The Ukrainian operation was a spectacular example of a wider trend: nuclear deterrence is not working
This article reads like clickbait. It ignores the context of the conflict in service of doomerism. It's vapid.
The conflict was about resources. Russia got what it wanted and stopped. People may think the war is about more than that, but it wasn't and isn't from Russia's perspective.
The incident described, was a guerrilla attack. A conventional attack that would provoke a nuclear response, from any nuclear country, would entail taking land from Russia (or a risk of national ground being gained) by a foreign force, capable of colonizing. That's what conventional means, not some checklist like "it must include tanks". Military losses are military losses during a war. Where they occur is incidental.
Odesa is still on the cards: one of the most important ports on the Black Sea, and a long-time cultural and historic prize.
And Putin wants control of the entire Black Sea coast, and Moldova. Furthermore there are clear signs of aggression toward the Baltics, which may be interpreted as preparation for a similar invasion.
I don't think that's historically correct. Maybe they were stopped after taking the natural gas and oil fields they were interested in. The initial goals succeeded.
I'm not saying Russia fared well since, but the initial progression was a blitzkrieg of specific POIs, which meandered and stalled at secondary and tertiary goals (like Odesa) due to resistance.
Russia doesn't have the manpower or technical capability to repeat the same maneuver for lesser goals, alone.
In the early stages of the invasion, the russians had plans for an amphibious assault on Odesa[1]. These were scrapped when they realized they'd be obliterated before even touching shore. Nevertheless, the orcs still talk frequently of "returning" "Odessa" to mother russia.
This article is absurd. They make a credible claim that nuclear deterrence through behavioral norms has failed, and then go on to conclude that the best alternative is ... Nuclear deterrence through behavioral norms. Has the author read their own article?
The deterrence could weaken but I suspect a single use of a nuke could (assuming it doesn't MAD) bring back deterrence by normalising use somewhat.
If you think about post hiroshima...I don't think anyone doubted the US was willing to wipe out cities
So not entirely convinced it's dead
It’s conceivable that Russia could force the West to back out of the proxy war. But then they’d get proliferation in Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, and other places. And Usrael would very likely use nukes against Iranian missile cities. (Conversely, first use against Iran would give Russia license etc.) Apart from general global instability and uncertainty this might unleash.
So, it’s not hard to see why they haven’t—so far. And why they are pursuing their (slow and costly, sure) conventional military, economical, and demographic long-term neutering of Ukraine. And let’s not forget the enormous economic/budgetary cost to the EU.
Also, Russia retains a number of ways to escalate inside of Ukraine: bridges, dams, depopulation of frontline cities. China could finally abandon their stance of being mostly neutral.
The problem is that Ukraine/West keep escalating and the day when Russia’s calculus changes may yet come.
> The problem is that Ukraine/West keep escalating (..)
Damn those .ru trolls are everywhere.
Since when has Ukraine's defense against the russian invasion been a "proxy war"? Your very first sentence destroyed any credibility the rest of your comment had (not that there was much worth reading anyway).
> The country that’s getting 55% of its state budget from the EU isn’t a proxy. Not to mention the munitions, the weapons, the training, and above all the access to the US’ trillion dollar ISR and satcom network.
Spade? That’s a shovel drenched in blood.
If the Kremlin calculated that European countries would just back off it was a very bad call indeed. Any reasonable leadership would have cut their losses yet here we are.
> Any reasonable leadership would have cut their losses yet here we are.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKxeuY7bMAEwZ30.png Indeed.
If Ukraine stops defending, it will cease to exist. russia can stop its invasion any time it wants to.
Big difference.
Self-fulfilling prophecies need prophets.
[dead]
> The Ukrainian operation was a spectacular example of a wider trend: nuclear deterrence is not working
This article reads like clickbait. It ignores the context of the conflict in service of doomerism. It's vapid.
The conflict was about resources. Russia got what it wanted and stopped. People may think the war is about more than that, but it wasn't and isn't from Russia's perspective.
The incident described, was a guerrilla attack. A conventional attack that would provoke a nuclear response, from any nuclear country, would entail taking land from Russia (or a risk of national ground being gained) by a foreign force, capable of colonizing. That's what conventional means, not some checklist like "it must include tanks". Military losses are military losses during a war. Where they occur is incidental.
Correction: russia was stopped.
Odesa is still on the cards: one of the most important ports on the Black Sea, and a long-time cultural and historic prize.
And Putin wants control of the entire Black Sea coast, and Moldova. Furthermore there are clear signs of aggression toward the Baltics, which may be interpreted as preparation for a similar invasion.
> Correction: russia was stopped.
I don't think that's historically correct. Maybe they were stopped after taking the natural gas and oil fields they were interested in. The initial goals succeeded.
I'm not saying Russia fared well since, but the initial progression was a blitzkrieg of specific POIs, which meandered and stalled at secondary and tertiary goals (like Odesa) due to resistance.
Russia doesn't have the manpower or technical capability to repeat the same maneuver for lesser goals, alone.
In the early stages of the invasion, the russians had plans for an amphibious assault on Odesa[1]. These were scrapped when they realized they'd be obliterated before even touching shore. Nevertheless, the orcs still talk frequently of "returning" "Odessa" to mother russia.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260610-has-russia-given...