A nuclear state cannot be defeated totally without causing a global disaster
It is illusory to think that the conflict can end with a peace negotiation. It can only end with its freezing, similar to those of Korea or Cyprus. The premise of any "ceasefire" is the Ukrainian success in repelling the announced Russian offensive. General Carlo Jean's analysis
Some scholars argue that the conflict in Ukraine marks a "return to the past", which is a war substantially similar to those of the past. Others that it is a completely new conflict, not only from a technological and geopolitical point of view, but also due to its nature. It contrasts a non-nuclear state, supported by a coalition that possesses substantial nuclear arsenals, against a nuclear one (Russia), which frequently resorts to the threat of escalation to intimidate Ukraine and, above all, its defenders.
THE TWO DIFFERENT THESIS ON THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR
Supporters of both theses have their share of reason according to the perspectives that follow. They are very different from each other. The former prioritize the profound nature of armed conflicts and their connections with politics. For them, the nature of the war in Ukraine is no different from wars of the past. The use of arms remains a political tool, to achieve a peace corresponding to the interests and principles of its leaders, taking into account the costs, risks and benefits that it entails and which are influenced above all by the balance of forces and the outcome of the fighting.
THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR: ANALOGIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH THE OLD WARS
For the latter, it is important to understand how one war is different from any other. The Ukrainian one is more accentuated than in the past. It is for various reasons: the technological evolution of weapon systems; the relevance assumed by the spatial and cybernetic dimensions and by the use of artificial intelligence, which allows the use of autonomous systems (dogfighting between drones); the attenuation of the nuclear taboo, with the extensive recourse to threats of nuclear escalation by Russia and the influence it has on the Western strategy of support for Kiev; the profound changes in world geopolitics and in the awareness of political leaders and public opinion; the proliferation and interrelationships of bipolar confrontations: between democracies and autocracies; between the West and the Global South; between NATO and Russia; between the USA and China; the crises of UN multilateralism and globalization; etc.
THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear weapons play an essential but indirect role. With the threat of their use – real on the Russian side, potential on the US side – they limit the conflict. They change the meaning of victory. It can't be total. A nuclear state cannot be defeated totally without causing a global disaster. The significance of victory over Russia in Ukraine does not mean that Kiev's tanks should parade on Red Square. It is a fact that the opponents of arms shipments to Kiev have not understood. The relaxation of the nuclear taboo affects the strategies adopted by both the Russian and Western sides.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND NATO
Russia does not attack NATO arms supply routes in Poland and Romania, while its use of nuclear power is becoming less and less credible. The West tries to limit the challenges to Moscow, to avoid cornering it (no-fly zone, very long-range missiles, refusal, at least for now, to supply fighter planes to Ukraine, etc.). But the progressiveness of Western support prevents us from passing from a strategy of attrition to one of manoeuvre. This dooms Ukraine to defeat, given Russia's increased resources and doubts about retaining support from the entire Western coalition. Defeat for Kiev means not being able to regain lost territories. For Putin, a victory consists not only in the annexation of some Ukrainian regions, but in permanent regime change in Kiev.
HOW PUTIN CAN SING VICTORY
Only then could Putin "sing victory" and not completely lose face and perhaps power. The trouble for him is that Kiev is not in it, not because Zelensky doesn't want it, but almost entirely the Ukrainian people. It is illusory to think that the conflict can end with a peace negotiation. It can only end with its freezing, similar to those of Korea or Cyprus.
TWO STRATEGIES FOR CONFLICT FREEZING
The security guarantees envisaged for Ukraine will be decisive in this regard, rather than the territorial transfers. They could be based on two strategies: first, the one that the USA seem to favor, to put Ukraine in a position to resist autonomously, for the time necessary for the arrival of NATO support. Second, the direct participation of the Alliance in the defense of the country, with a modification of its founding treaty. The first hypothesis corresponds to the transfer of combat aircraft to Kiev, especially the F-16, given the time required for pilot training.
THE ESSENTIAL PREMISES FOR A CEASE-FIRE
The premise of any "ceasefire" is the Ukrainian success in repelling the announced Russian offensive. The supply of arms to Kiev, necessary for this purpose, therefore represents the only concrete measure that can facilitate the cessation of the massacres. Only after a Ukrainian success can favorable conditions be established for effective pressure from Washington on Kiev to agree to negotiations and, implicitly, the inevitable territorial compromises, in exchange for the necessary guarantees of security. Incidentally, they must be credible, not reduced to mere promises as in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Kiev ceded the almost 2,000 nuclear warheads left on its territory to Moscow in exchange for the promise of security and territorial integrity by USA, UK and Russia.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/uno-stato-nucleare-non-puo-essere-sconfitto-totalmente-senza-provocare-un-disastro-globale/ on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 10:16:00 +0000.