Tweet
DSL ..... nuclear brinksmanship. It's been played multiple times in the last 50y, the most notable the Cuban Missile Crisis. Any leader can play this game risking the anhelation of himself and his country. Khrushchev did it now Putin is doing it. At some point in this classic nuclear war game, history reminds that self preservation prevails. It's a probability risk calculation. If NATO engages on a conventional level does Putin escalate with tactical nukes or ICBMs? My bet, out of his own egotism and self interests - knowing that if he takes such a step he is likely to himself be destroyed - , is that he won't and that planners looking at the probability risk that he will know this.
What it comes down to DSL is this, do you sit by and watch the Russians lay siege to three Ukrainian cities, pulverize them causing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in the process? Do you signal to the rest of the autocrats in the word - take whatever you want, destroy cities, kill indiscriminately to obtain your objectives, democracies don't have the political will or the stomach to stop you - or, given a low risk probability your actions will precipitate a nuclear exchange by your adversary, do democratic leaders make a future investment in global security by confronting the aggression with what is likely necessary - conventional force on force?
I'm going with the latter option via NATO AIr Power with the firm belief that Putin will not employ a nuke tactically or strategically in the face of his forces being rendered ineffective by an air campaign. Putin has not only blundered on a tactical level by failing to realize the strength of the Ukrainian resistance but also strategically by failing to recognize that NATO and the world would unite again him. The delays in achieving his objectives have resulted in what we call a target rich environment of out in the open and apparently undefended lines of military equipment. Sieze the day. BOMB IT.
Sanctions are fine but the final ingredient needed from the West is a humiliating ass kicking of his forces by NATO Air Power. It appears to me that the Russians have failed to deploy the necessary equipment to achieve air superiority over the battle space. They assumed they didn't need it. Meanwhile there appears to be an obvious blunder by Russian planners openly massing forces in a small area making them vulnerable to both ground and air attack. NATO needs to seize on these blunders and by doing so convince Putin he needs to quit the battle.
What it comes down to DSL is this, do you sit by and watch the Russians lay siege to three Ukrainian cities, pulverize them causing an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in the process? Do you signal to the rest of the autocrats in the word - take whatever you want, destroy cities, kill indiscriminately to obtain your objectives, democracies don't have the political will or the stomach to stop you - or, given a low risk probability your actions will precipitate a nuclear exchange by your adversary, do democratic leaders make a future investment in global security by confronting the aggression with what is likely necessary - conventional force on force?
I'm going with the latter option via NATO AIr Power with the firm belief that Putin will not employ a nuke tactically or strategically in the face of his forces being rendered ineffective by an air campaign. Putin has not only blundered on a tactical level by failing to realize the strength of the Ukrainian resistance but also strategically by failing to recognize that NATO and the world would unite again him. The delays in achieving his objectives have resulted in what we call a target rich environment of out in the open and apparently undefended lines of military equipment. Sieze the day. BOMB IT.
Sanctions are fine but the final ingredient needed from the West is a humiliating ass kicking of his forces by NATO Air Power. It appears to me that the Russians have failed to deploy the necessary equipment to achieve air superiority over the battle space. They assumed they didn't need it. Meanwhile there appears to be an obvious blunder by Russian planners openly massing forces in a small area making them vulnerable to both ground and air attack. NATO needs to seize on these blunders and by doing so convince Putin he needs to quit the battle.
Comment