That's why I think Putin won't use nukes but would just load chemical weapons on drones to attack European cities and blame it on some terrorist organization. Trump might even support him in claiming that Russia is innocent and NATO shouldn't be involved. They already tested it on Poland with empty drones and said Russia didn't send any drones.
Any reasonable planning requires looking at the scenario your action creates - the range of outcomes. The range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan.
> range certainly includes Putin using nuclear weapons (which is part of Russia's military doctrine - see 'escalate to deescalate'). That needs to be part of your plan
If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
Appeasement can work. But it can also increase risks. In this case, giving into a bully invites escalation itself, which increases the chances of a fuckup (e.g. a misfired drone taking out an early-warning radar) which legitimately calls for nuclear escalation.
The stereotypical warmonger rhetoric is (and not at all calling you one, just the extreme example), either you are hyper-aggressive or you are a cowardly appeaser. Think how binary that is; then think how literally one-dimensional even the critique is that it's as binary - the implication is there is a continuum between two poles, as if the field of options is a line, only one variable.
The true IR expertise - and you'll see this from the actual experts (and caveat: I am no more than a well-read amatuer) - is to neither escalate nor appease. The focus is on outcomes, not 'getting justice' (I can't think of a better term: reaction, emotional satisfaction, blame, fighting back, etc.). It endlessly frustrates many in the public, because of course they want emotional satisfaction; it also endlessly frustrates me because the leaders don't explain this.
It's like an engineering problem: You don't want to make decisions in anger; blame is terrible leadership; trying to hurt whoever caused your problem is absurd. It all would make your situation worse, even if you solve the original problem. Obviously, you think about the overall outcome for your organization and plan the best way to get there.
In sports, 'trash talk' is used to get that emotional reaction from people, because it takes them away from trying to win the game. The moment you get that response, you know you've won. Russia is working for that moment and is getting it from some.
> If we had acted decisively at the beginning of the Ukraine war, the risk of nuclear war would be lower today.
I agree completely - depending on what you mean (I certainly oppose direct combat between NATO and Russia). And we can still do it now: If NATO guarantees Ukraine unlimited material support until they win the war, no matter how long, not only would Ukraine win but when Russia was convinced of that (however that might happen), they would give up. The Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia. It would be much cheaper than the alternative of Russia gaining ground and fighting them later, and it would drain Russia's military and economy substantially.
Certainly that's not appeasing and it's barely escalatory: It's not a threat to Russian security - Ukraine obviously isn't invading - though it's eventually a threat to Putin's political standing, he may navigate it. And escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides. That's the outcome NATO wants anyway.
> Europeans could do it themselves - they have ~~ 20x the economy of Russia
Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
> escalatory risk could be further decreased by offering Russia a permanent security treaty based on the old borders, with disarmament on both sides
What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
> Europe isn’t politically capable of decisive action. By design. Some European countries could, but I’m not seeing a proximate future where Europe is-and is treated as—a great power.
Kissinger famously said, ~ 'if I want to call Europe, who do I speak to?' Generally I think your position is more true than not.
But the Europeans have an opportunity to act more cohesively: Since Kissinger, things have changed considerably: Europe has the political and military structures: the EU government is much stronger, with greatly expanded power, and more cohesive, helped by the exit of the dissenter UK and the Russian threat; the EU and NATO now encompass pretty much everyone west of Russia. There has long been a growing movement to strengthen EU foreign policy in that way - even having a military force.
And they have powerful incentives: Russia's threat and the US's abandonment; and the rise of China (and India and others) makes Europe's individual 'great powers' into middling and regional ones. Just imagine the UK still ruling Hong Kong today. Together, the EU would be the second leading power in the world - potentially growing into the first if they don't alienate everyone like another power.
Also, they don't need to act cohesively. Germany by itself has a far bigger economy than Russia and could fund Ukraine alone - and they wouldn't be totally alone, either.
> What do you mean by disarmament? Ukraine and Russia will obviously maintain arms after any peace. They just won’t be blowing each other up.
Again, likely true. My very hypothetical point was, a broader NATO-Russian peace could disarm both sides, including the sensitive regions. Maybe Ukraine joins NATO to give them security. Open up trade with Russia too.
Russia has no political position to reject that offer - peace, security, trade - except Putin's imperialist ambitions. It would demonstrate the lie in Putin's claim that NATO seeks to control Russia. It might be hard for him to resist that offer domestically.
The preferred outcome is to further fragment the Russian Federation, leaving the rump successor state too small and weak to pose a significant threat. We did the same thing once before so let's just do it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...