Is Nuclear war now a possible consequence of the Ukraine war? It would seem so.
Putin has threatened nuclear weapons since February 27th when he raised Russia’s nuclear alert. It was reported on October 4 that Russia repositioned some nuclear forces and later this month Russia conducted its annual nuclear drills.
Yet as recently as two days ago Putin is walking back his nuclear sabre rattling saying there is no need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, no political or military benefit from their use and his comments about possible use of nuclear were in response to imagined nuclear threats from the West.
It’s possible that Putin realised his nuclear threats were counter productive. Once Putin wielded nuclear threats, Western support was locked in behind Ukraine as the West couldn’t afford to give in to nuclear blackmail or be a victim of it forever after.
Had the West capitulated to Putin’s nuclear threats any nuclear armed autocrat could execute the same play. North Korea could demand US retreat from South Korea leaving it to the mercies of Kim Jung-un or Iran could stand over Saudi Arabia and Israel and who knows what Pakistan might do?
Which brings us to the role of, what might unkindly be referred to as, Western appeasers Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbards.
Isolationism has a long history in the US given it has the twin moats of the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, a land safe within two shining seas.
Isolationism was significant prior to the US engagement in WWII and so it has re-emerged. Some contemporary isolationists such as Tucker Carlson suggest that the Democrats are a greater threat than Putin, “Putin has never called me racist,” and what has Ukraine got to do with the US or Ukraine has no strategic importance to the US.
Other isolationist views are that the US shouldn’t be spending money in Ukraine when it’s needed at home, they argue US support to Ukraine is pouring gasoline on the fire leading to a longer war with more casualties with possible catastrophic nuclear consequences. The appeasers argue that reducing US support for Ukraine will deescalate the War, force Ukraine to negotiate an early ceasefire with Russia and so save lives and diminish nuclear risk.
Would reduced Western support for Ukraine result in a cease fire and save lives or would Ukraine fight on with less means and so with heavier losses and less success?
It’s clear that Putin is now more willing to talk even if unwilling to compromise and yet only due to his current lack of military success. Were the West to dial down its support for Ukraine would this result in a cease fire or would Putin become less interested in diplomacy with increased military success given lack of Western supplied Ukrainian munitions? Others such as the Democrat 30 and Musk urge the US to dial down its support and negotiate directly with Russia as if Ukraine will observe any resulting terms as dictated by the West. In this view Ukraine will do what the West requires because it is essentially a Western puppet government – this is Putin’s view, and yet Ukraine demonstrates every day a willingness to “die in a ditch” for its independence.
Rather than buckle to Western requirements Ukraine shows every sign of a willingness to fight come what may with or without Western support. In the absence of Western support with neither side able to win and Ukraine, with a dearth of long range weapons resorting to close quarter fighting, the conflict is likely to continue interminably with many more deaths.
Clearly the fastest way to bring this conflict to an end and save lives is to support Ukraine with long range precision weapons that enable Ukraine to have the maximum military effect with the minimum of civilian casualties in the shortest possible time, supporting it to win rather than just enough so it doesn’t lose.
The isolationists argue that US support is escalating the conflict and hence raising the prospect of a nuclear event in Ukraine, and yet Carlson and Gabbard demonstrate weakening US resolve in the face of nuclear threats and so demonstrates Putin’s nuclear sabre rattling is effective in undermining Western support for Ukraine so encourages more nuclear sabre rattling and the possibility of a nuclear miscalculation.
Interestingly, Putin is walking back his nuclear threats, for no apparent reason since they have no downside for Putin, the only downside being if he actually goes nuclear resulting possibly in direct NATO intervention in Ukraine or at least a dramatic escalation in Western weaponry for Ukraine.
So why is Putin now down playing his rhetoric when his nuclear threats were an effective argument for diminishing Western support, the very thing that stands between him and his objectives?
It’s not likely that anything the West have done diplomatically have caused Putin to walk it back. Putin’s not the man to deescalate, with his childhood observations of the desperation of cornered rates or his doctrine of escalate to deescalate.
It seems most likely that Putin’s allies, in particular China or maybe Turkey, have grown increasingly alarmed at Putin’s nuclear threats and have demanded he wind them down.
We live in interesting times.