The majority of European countries turned to the tried and tested protective security umbrella of NATO, backed by American military capabilities. NATO’s response to the war, balancing increasingly strong support to Ukraine with a justified reluctance to avoid open conflict with Russia, has been more or less vindicated. US leadership has once again proven essential in successfully mobilising international efforts, especially in coordinating military support to Ukraine. NATO and the European Union have, to a large extent, responded effectively in the first months of the war. Such brinkmanship has contributed to the return of nuclear arms into the power competition on a global stage. The Russian president has even shown his willingness to bring Belarus into the nuclear equation. This is backed by exercises (at least two this year) openly testing the Russian military’s ability to fire nuclear warheads at Western targets and protect Russia from possible counter-strikes. Compared to Cold War practice, today, Kremlin propagandists and officials engage in highly irresponsible rhetoric advocating for the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal against Ukraine, and possibly even against NATO states. While many experts calculate that risk to be low - not higher than five percent - Putin and his aides have chosen to abandon the rational caution exercised by the majority of his Soviet predecessors. A long-held taboo that made an actual application of nuclear force unthinkable has been verbally discarded. Russia has also purposefully raised the level of risk for the possible use of nuclear weapons, the main goal primarily being to discourage Western Allies from offering military support to Ukraine and to instil fear in decision-makers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |