Summary

NATO’s Military Committee head, Admiral Rob Bauer, stated that NATO troops would likely be in Ukraine countering Russian forces if Russia lacked nuclear weapons.

Speaking at the IISS Prague Defence Summit, Bauer emphasized that Russia’s nuclear arsenal deters direct NATO involvement, contrasting Ukraine’s situation with past NATO interventions in non-nuclear states like Afghanistan.

Although NATO nations provide military aid to Ukraine, direct troop deployment has been avoided, with leaders like U.S. President Biden ruling it out due to nuclear escalation risks highlighted by Russian threats and rhetoric.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Fuck it. If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers. Put boots on the ground, or accept nuclear proliferation as a fact of life once countries realize that Ukraine proves that giving up nukes does not result in international support for sovereignty against revanchist states.

    • atzanteol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 month ago

      If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers.

      Well… yeah.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        The easy solution is to show that nukes are not protection against all conventional intervention. We should have given Zelenskyy a no-fly zone back when he asked for one.

          • whyNotSquirrel
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            Step 1: Put boots on Russian territory

            Step 2: (nuclear) Winter is coming

            Step 3: 💥 profit 💥

            • gravitas_deficiency
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Nobody’s saying NATO should invade Russia.

              We’re saying NATO could EASILY establish IADS over the vast majority of Ukraine to defend their civilian population and infrastructure.

        • azuth
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          But they are. Its been settled decades ago.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 month ago

      The only thing that surprises me in geopolitics right now is that Iran is not mass producing nukes yet.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s a delicate process, not easy to simply produce a bunch of nuclear weapons. Iran is at the point where they could have a few inside of a year anytime they actually want to trigger that particular international crisis.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The moment they would try to make the last dash to nukes, is the moment the US would be bombing the everlasting shit out of Iran to prevent it.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers

      That is the assumption Russia is operating under.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah this is such a losing strategy. All it does is authorize crimes in the short term and drive up nuclear proliferation in the long term.

      Of course, the alternative is a game of chicken with nuclear powers to test the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

      Still, better to do that now than years from now with the smaller, more radical parties who will by then control nukes, thanks to the nuclear proliferation the current strategy drives.