*Russian use of nuclear weapons is a plausible contingency that Washington needs to account for and a hugely important factor in determining the future trajectory of the conflict
*Although a Russian decision to attack a NATO member state is by no means inevitable, the risk is elevated while the conflict in Ukraine is ongoing.
*Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley reportedly kept a list of “U.S. interests and strategic objectives” in the crisis: “No. 1” was “Don’t have a kinetic conflict between the U.S. military and NATO with Russia.” The second, closely related, was “contain war inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine.”
*It is clear why Milley listed avoiding a Russia-NATO war as the top U.S. priority: The U.S. military would immediately be involved in a hot war with a country that has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Keeping a Russia-NATO war below the nuclear threshold would be extremely difficult, particularly given the weakened state of Russia’s conventional military.
*Since neither side appears to have the intention or capabilities to achieve absolute victory, the war will most likely end with some sort of negotiated outcome.
*Since avoiding a long war is the highest priority after minimizing escalation risks, the United States should take steps that make an end to the conflict over the medium term more likely.
*A major source of uncertainty about the future course of the war is the relative lack of clarity about the future of U.S. and allied military assistance to Ukraine.
In recent years, governments have created armies of online warriors designed to fact-check alleged Russian ‘disinformation.’ Worryingly, these guardians of the truth are often more dangerous than the threat they claim to combat.
You must be logged in to post a comment.