Reflector on a stick11/21/2023 An end to the fighting would also substantially reduce the risk of nuclear use, which thankfully remains a low-probability event, but one that has enormous consequences.Įrica D. ![]() Indeed, the nuclear dangers remain and continue to rise, particularly if Putin grows more desperate.”įinding a way to stop Russia’s horrible war would end the suffering of the Ukrainian people and allow them to start the long process of rebuilding. As Kelly Grieco and I note, “The most dangerous lesson Washington could possibly take away from the last year of the war is that it should fear nuclear weapons less. That the conflict has not (yet) crossed the nuclear threshold should not be taken as definitive proof that Putin’s threats are not credible. Much as we might like it to be otherwise, nuclear weapons do loom over the war in Ukraine - and they will continue to do so, as long as the fighting continues. And this confirms what we already knew about nuclear weapons: they are better for deterrence than for coercion. The United States and NATO have been deterred from intervening directly in the war, but Putin’s nuclear threats failed to compel Ukraine to capitulate before the war started - and seem no more effective one year in. People will fight to preserve their independence, even when facing a much larger and more militarily powerful foe.įacing the prospect of a conventional military defeat, Putin has brandished the nuclear card, but without much success. The Ukraine war is merely the latest reminder that aggression doesn’t pay. The Russian military has been decimated, its economy has been battered (though not as badly as some had hoped), Europe is weaning itself off Russian energy, NATO is poised to add two new members, and Russia’s international standing has plummeted. That the conflict has not (yet) crossed the nuclear threshold should not be taken as definitive proof that Putin’s threats are not credible.īut what has transpired over the last year doesn’t look like “success.” Indeed, it is hard to imagine any leader of any country wanting to emulate President Vladimir Putin. Nuclear weapons loom over the war in Ukraine and will continue to do so. For example, when President Joe Biden observed that “the prospect of Armageddon” was at the highest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kori Schake scolded that such “public expressions of anxiety” served to “reward Russia for making nuclear threats.” Others have advised against being “intimidated or self-deterred by Russian saber-rattling.” Underlying such warnings is a fear that any appearance of Russian “success” would convince others to engage in similar acts of naked aggression without fear of retaliation. ![]() This is especially prevalent among those wishing to do more to help Ukraine and punish Russia. One recurring theme throughout the conflict has been a tendency to downplay the nuclear risks. Several discussed the role of the private sector in aiding Ukraine.įour experts share their main takeaways from the first year of Russia’s war in Ukraine below.Ĭhristopher Preble, Senior Fellow and Director, Stimson Center’s Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program Participants also discussed what Russia’s role in the world might be going forward and whether attempts to isolate Russia have been as successful as theorized at the start of the invasion. ![]() Two specific issues came up repeatedly: the persisting threat of escalation to nuclear conflict and the importance of logistics in war. The Reimagining US Grand Strategy program’s February 2023 roundtable brought experts together to discuss what they had learned from the war in Ukraine so far. A year in, the war in Ukraine has provided many lessons about modern warfare and continues to raise concerns about what might come next. There were assumptions abound about how the war would go, many of which were quickly proven wrong. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shocked the world, partly because many assumed the type of warfare Russia had decided to undertake was confined to a past era. It aims to give you a peek into their Zoom room and a deep understanding of the issue at hand in less than the time it takes to sip your morning coffee without the jargon, acronyms, and stuffiness that often come with expertise. The series stems from the group’s monthly networking events that call on analysts to gather virtually and hash out a salient topic. “ Adults in a Room” is a series in collaboration with The Stimson Center’s Reimagining US Grand Strategy program.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |