North Korea is not a global military power, its not an important economic power, it doesn't hold considerable reserves of important resources, it's not a big player in world trade, it doesn't have a seat in important intergovernmental political forums, it's not currently involved in a large-scale armed conflict and is not a member of the UN Security Council.
North Korea dangerous because it has a (comparatively, tiny) nuclear stockpile, but in the grand scheme of things, it's rather irrelevant.
Russia is all those things above that North Korea isn't. Neither Russia nor the USA have performed nuclear tests in the 21st century and that was a huge step that took insurmountable diplomatic work to achieve. Starting nuclear tests again would not only be a huge step back diplomatically, but also open a whole other can of worms that thankfully still remains closed. As things currently are, it's a smart move geopolitically to not be the country that takes that step back, or that opens that can of worms.
> That's sounds a bit too rational, not MAD enough, you know? Putin clearly wasn't thinking rationally, otherwise there wouldn't be a war to begin with.
I'm from Mexico and am currently down here and not in the USA. What strikes me as the biggest difference in news coverage of the war isn't so much the stance— in both countries the war is seen as a horrible invasion that's led to unnecessary death— but the treatment and overall depiction "rationality".
It's the little things— the adjectives, the tone, the comments, the headlines. In the USA one somehow ends up feeling Russia is a weak nation Putin managed to drag into a reckless and little-thought-out war that'll be over any minute now given the sheer incompetence of the Russian side. The same events might get coverage in Mexico, and the Russian side might be equally denounced, but one doesn't end up feeling Russia is an irrational, weak or stupid actor.
It might have to do with the smugness? After all the USA has the largest military in the world but Mexico's doesn't compare with either side's. Or perhaps culturally the USA sees Russia as "the remains of that adversary we beat last century", but in Mexico we learn about the Cold War from a third person perspective?
IMO, over a year into the war now, this war doesn't seem _that_ stupid and irrational. It's still wrong to invade another country, but the move doesn't seem "dumb" on Putin's end. He is still in power, the rubble bounced back, BRICS are as strong as ever, and if anything the USA is in a pre-electoral bind— do they keep pouring resources into supporting Ukraine or do they start focusing on Taiwan? Can both be done?
I think it's a big mistake to underestimate an enemy, and I wonder if people in the USA are underestimating Russia too much. The general population that is. I don't think the government has yet fallen into that trap of underestimating them too much.
> Russia is honoring its treaty commitments not to test nuclear weapons.
Your assumption that Russia cares about following the treaties it signs upto is admirable but not reality. Russia never follows treaties when it doesn’t want to, so either they don’t want to test a nuke or can’t.
i am not making any assumptions at all. only stating two objective facts: Russia has ratified multiple international test ban treaties, and it has honored those treaties so far.
you are the one making assumptions and imputing negative intent.
i do agree that it ultimately does come down to the point that they "don't want to," because of course a treaty is just words on paper, so it is always a choice whether to follow it or not.
on the other hand, to assume that Russia's choice to abide by its treaty obligations is because their nukes "don't work" is a wild leap of fantasy based on no evidence or logic whatsoever.
Russia is clearly massively outgunned both militarily and economically by the US/NATO and nobody disputes this.
logically it is in Russia strategic interests to pressure the US into nuclear treaties that reduce US nuclear capacity so that Russia can be more competitive militarily at a lower cost.
Russia would not be able to maintain even their war in Ukraine without the support or acquiescence of their allies and countries that see a benefit in remaining somewhat neutral (china, india, brazil, turkey, saudi arabia, iran, and many others). Russia would have zero chance whatsoever in direct all out warfare with US/NATO and they are well aware of this and so they have to play to the court of international opinion in order to stay alive.
consequently, it is in Russia's interests to avoid escalation, especially nuclear escalation, as much as possible, and this is the course they have been following so far.
i am not making any assumptions about Russian intent (which i know nothing about) but the objective facts of their strategic situation mean that launching (or testing) nukes would be suicidal and so, assuming that they are rational enough to have basic survival instincts, this seems highly unlikely unless it is a last ditch mutually assured destruction play where they know they are going to be conquered either way.
North Korea dangerous because it has a (comparatively, tiny) nuclear stockpile, but in the grand scheme of things, it's rather irrelevant.
Russia is all those things above that North Korea isn't. Neither Russia nor the USA have performed nuclear tests in the 21st century and that was a huge step that took insurmountable diplomatic work to achieve. Starting nuclear tests again would not only be a huge step back diplomatically, but also open a whole other can of worms that thankfully still remains closed. As things currently are, it's a smart move geopolitically to not be the country that takes that step back, or that opens that can of worms.