> Woodward writes that Biden's national security team at one point believed there was a real threat, a 50 per cent chance, that Putin would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Hopefully they are exaggerating for effect. A strategy of actively probing for Russia's breaking point is ruinously stupid; when you find it the odds are pretty good that it will be because they are at the point where they are willing to go nuclear. They might try some sort of escalate-to-de-escalate strike on NATO but there must be a pretty decent chance that would just escalate and the Russian command would be aware of that.
Not lobbing missiles in to Russia is an entirely reasonable red line. We got all the way through the Afghan war and the Iraq war without anyone launching missiles into the US and that restraint didn't seem to cause any long term problems. Extending similar courtesies to Russia is appropriate.
FWIW the US is also 100% aware of this. See the Proud Prophet wargames. [1] It was one of the most extensive, largescale, and 'realistic' wargames ever executed. It was essentially working out a variety of military strategies to try to gain an edge over the USSR - demonstrative nuclear strikes, limited-scale nuclear war, decapitation strikes against leadership, and so on.
The outcome of literally every single scenario was essentially the end of the world with billions dead and the Northern Hemisphere rendered largely inhospitable. This wargame was carried out in 1983. Its conclusion lead the US military and leadership to change course from the previous pattern of escalation as a means of victory, to de-escalation and collaboration. By 1991 the Soviet Union would collapse with their leaders holding hands with American leaders.
By 1991 ... yes, I remember, it was an exciting time, The Scorpions wrote a song, everybody was very positive. This lasted about eight years.
They've apparently changed the lyrics now. The opening lines are changed to "Now listen to my heart / It says Ukrainia, waiting for the wind to change." Meine stated, "It's not the time with this terrible war in Ukraine raging on, it's not the time to romanticize Russia."
I'm pretty sure the military industrial complex has had those leaders replaced with ones of the "let's hit them, they're bluffing" variety. The fact they're even testing the limits they've already broken through seems like a case study in strategic incompetence. AFAIK there is literally nothing in this for the US apart from an opportunity to set China up for greater success. Which, while a noble move, is probably not intentional.
Bear? It is more like a stray dog that keeps shitting on your living room carpet. You don’t need to hate the dog, you just keep it on the outside where it can run around and have a great time on it’s own.
This obviously isn't their goal anymore than the Russians are running out of missiles, the ruble is rubble, this 'game-changer' will imminently end the war (instead of obv just escalating it), and so on endlessly. Russia started negotiations to end the war 4 days (!!!) after the war began when, at that point, it wasn't even a war, but little more than some performative demonstrations!
And the main thing they wanted is what they've said all along - Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. Everything else was negotiable - they were even willing to compromise on the exact status of Crimea! Then we got good ole Boris Johnson telling Zelensky to 'just fight'. One brilliant leader offering wisdom to another, with the outcome anybody could expect when such minds come together.
Notably Putin has also somewhat uncharacteristically shared the details of conversations he was having with Biden shortly prior to the war. And it was again all about Ukraine's NATO status. Biden refused to budge beyond agreeing to delay Ukraine's entry by 10-15 years (which was probably a defacto sort of 'we'll wait until you die' offer). Russian began amassing forces relatively shortly after that conversation.
This Russian agitprop always invites the question: why does Russia care if Ukraine is in NATO or not, if it actually respects its independence and territorial integrity? Russian claims all boil down to the notion that NATO wants to "move its forces to the borders" so as to ultimately invade and occupy Russia proper. If you don't believe that this is the purpose of NATO, then the entire construction makes zero sense. The reason why Ukraine wants to be in NATO is not because they like the logo, it's because they want to be safe from being invaded by Russia - and the same goes for every single country in Eastern Europe that has joined since USSR fell.
Imagine if China managed to convince Mexico to join a military alliance and then moved to deploy troops, military bases, and likely nuclear weapons right on the border. I assume you obviously agree that even in this scenario China is not planning to literally invade the US, yet the US would obviously never in a million years allow this - and if China did not back down there would, with 100% certainty, be a war over it.
Come to think of it, this isn't even much of a hypothetical as this is essentially exactly what the Cuban Missile Crisis [1] was about, but the US was freaking out about weapons that were not even on a shared border, merely 'too close', bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war over it.
If Mexico was constantly threatened with an invasion from US, I would expect them to try really hard to join some kind of military alliance that could counter that, and if US were to respond to that the way Russia did, it would absolutely have been in the wrong. But this hypothetical, while amusing to consider, is not what we're dealing with, and ignoring this whole part about historical occupation and forced assimilation that ended recently enough that many people alive in Ukraine today still remember it, is extremely misleading as analogies go.
And yes, this whole bullshit about "they're not a real nation" etc was very much a thing in Russia before 2022, and before 2014 even. I should know; I grew up there. I remember reading "Эпоха мертворожденных" in 2008, and that's pretty much what Russia actually did in 2014 (except of course the whole "NATO occupation" of the non-separatist parts turned out to be imaginary). But I remember hearing similar sentiments in the 90s as a kid, as well. And since Ukrainians are well within the Russian cultural orbit, they were aware of those trends, too - and took appropriate precautions. This notion that invasion wouldn't have happened if they didn't seek NATO membership is wrong.
Imagine if China managed to convince Mexico to join a military alliance and then moved to deploy troops, military bases, and likely nuclear weapons right on the border.
You can imagine all you want, but that's not what happened in regard to Ukraine.
What did happen is that Ukraine formally renounced its NATO aspirations in 2010, but Putin invaded anyway in 2014.
And the main thing they wanted is what they've said all along - Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO or host foreign military bases. Everything else was negotiable - they were even willing to compromise on the exact status of Crimea!
That wasn't what Putin said in his December 2021 ultimatum.
My comment is based on what was happening during the negotiations before the west tanked them.
But more generally when skilled leaders want "X" they generally instead say they want "X, Y and Z." The goal is so that you can then 'compromise' by withdrawing your desire for Y and Z. And in the best case, you may even get at least some of Y and Z.
You're leaving out the part where the "skilled leader" says "We want X, Y, Z, W, and the kitchen sink. And if you don't give it to us, we're going to blow your pretty little head clean off, motherfucker."
~ https://www.9news.com.au/world/new-book-reveals-candid-behin...
Hopefully they are exaggerating for effect. A strategy of actively probing for Russia's breaking point is ruinously stupid; when you find it the odds are pretty good that it will be because they are at the point where they are willing to go nuclear. They might try some sort of escalate-to-de-escalate strike on NATO but there must be a pretty decent chance that would just escalate and the Russian command would be aware of that.
Not lobbing missiles in to Russia is an entirely reasonable red line. We got all the way through the Afghan war and the Iraq war without anyone launching missiles into the US and that restraint didn't seem to cause any long term problems. Extending similar courtesies to Russia is appropriate.