Summary
NATO’s Military Committee head, Admiral Rob Bauer, stated that NATO troops would likely be in Ukraine countering Russian forces if Russia lacked nuclear weapons.
Speaking at the IISS Prague Defence Summit, Bauer emphasized that Russia’s nuclear arsenal deters direct NATO involvement, contrasting Ukraine’s situation with past NATO interventions in non-nuclear states like Afghanistan.
Although NATO nations provide military aid to Ukraine, direct troop deployment has been avoided, with leaders like U.S. President Biden ruling it out due to nuclear escalation risks highlighted by Russian threats and rhetoric.
Fuck it. If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers. Put boots on the ground, or accept nuclear proliferation as a fact of life once countries realize that Ukraine proves that giving up nukes does not result in international support for sovereignty against revanchist states.
If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers.
Well… yeah.
The easy solution is to show that nukes are not protection against all conventional intervention. We should have given Zelenskyy a no-fly zone back when he asked for one.
“Easy.” 👌
Step 1: Put boots on Russian territory
Step 2: (nuclear) Winter is coming
Step 3: 💥
profit💥Nobody’s saying NATO should invade Russia.
We’re saying NATO could EASILY establish IADS over the vast majority of Ukraine to defend their civilian population and infrastructure.
Easy as in simple, not easy as in likely or without cost.
But they are. Its been settled decades ago.
Yeah this is such a losing strategy. All it does is authorize crimes in the short term and drive up nuclear proliferation in the long term.
Of course, the alternative is a game of chicken with nuclear powers to test the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Still, better to do that now than years from now with the smaller, more radical parties who will by then control nukes, thanks to the nuclear proliferation the current strategy drives.
If not for nukes, Poland probably would have rolled Russia by themselves. The rest of NATO could just be emotional support.
I’m out of the loop. Is Poland considered to have a strong army?
Poland’s military is about half again larger than Ukraine prior to the war, large portions of it are very well trained, and their equipment is significantly better. If they decided to march to Moscow, nothing Russia has, short of nukes, would slow them down. And Poland would really like to discuss with them, some of the things that happened in WW2, in an up front and personal way.
It’s nice to see this war proving that nuclear disarmament is unwise both for peaceful nations wishing to maintain stable borders and for aggressor nations seeking to invade the neighbors who gave up their nukes.
Like, given Ukrainian history it’s kinda shocking they gave them up, even with all the assurances they were given.
So it’s a very good thing Russia has nukes then.
Imagine thinking it’s a “very good thing” that any nation has nuclear weapons. Let alone the 5,580 nuclear warheads in Russia’s stockpile.
And yes, before you whatabout, I don’t think it’s a “very good thing” that the U.S. has them either. I certainly don’t think it’s a “very good thing” that Israel and North Korea have them.
I doubt you will, but I would recommend you read this book to find out why it is absolutely not a “very good thing.”
I have to assume there was some sarcasm in there that I’m missing.
Rules for life (abbreviated):
-
Never go to a second location
-
Always get the interior ministry post
-
Never get in a helicopter
-
If someone with a gun enters your car, they’re gonna kill you
-
If someone tells you they’re not going to kill you, they’re calming you down to kill you later
-
Never give up your nukes
-
