I think it's weird you don't think anyone involved in the problem has thought of your proposed solution, or that you don't think there's any potential negative effects from antagonizing an unhinged despot with his finger on the nuke.
Putin invading Ukraine was impossible because he's not unhinged and it would be an insanely stupid thing to do. He's just gathering his armies next to the border because he's flaunting his strength.
>I'm afraid that conviction is actually growing
Based off your in-depth research of casually browsing NY Times headlines?
First, not everyone, Ukrainians knew. Second, after the end of WW2 we lived (wanted to live) under a spell that conquering whole countries with some opportunistic genocide on top is not going to happen anymore, or at least not in the "civilized" Europe. Now, I hope the spell is off, we can see the world more clearly, and it's a raw power competition in which Putin thinks he has the winning cards or can at least out bluff everyone.
Sounds like you were not following the events because invasion was effectively "announced" by US Intelligence weeks before the actual declaration of war. Besides, this was not the only sign and if you know the way Putin talks and you listened to him days before the invasion (talking about Russian Empire's old glory) you'd see that he already made his mind up way before the actual day of invasion. Of course, it's easy to see things in hindsight (and I did truly predict the invasion before it happened) but sounds like you're not even aware of all the available data.
Again, just read the news articles from January/February of this year.
It sounds like you weren't paying any attention to this in Feb and are just trying to come up with arguments to support your points.
That's completely false. Just read the news from February.
U.S. Intelligence was warning Ukraine that Putin was planning to invade while Zelensky was in denial.
The invasion began on Thursday Feb. 24. On Monday Feb. 21, Zelenky was insistent that Putin wouldn't be crazy enough invade Ukraine.
Here's some articles from right before the invasion
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60174684
- https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220206-us-officials-war...
- https://nypost.com/2022/01/28/zelensky-rebukes-western-panic...
And yes, no one was sure that this Feb military build up results in war cause there was already a build up in April before that. But this invasion was inevitable with the current Russian leadership, UAF underwent a series of reforms since 2014 to prepare for it.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076699748/ukraine-russian-at...
That's an absurd take. He was clearly completely unprepared for the invasion and was not expecting it in the slightest.
If he was expecting it, he wouldn't have been in complete denial of US intelligence and wouldn't decried it as "the West sowing panic for political gains".
> In some random interviews he said Ukraine is prepared
I have no idea why you're looking at "random interviews" when you can just look at exactly what happened.
Ukraine was completely unprepared for Russian invasion and they were clearly shocked when the Russians invaded.
Did Zelenky evacuate any civilians beforehand? Nope. Did he ask NATO countries for aid? Nope, it was the exact opposite.
NATO countries were offering aid and he was calling them alarmist.
The only thing they can end with nukes are themselves. What was even the point of attacking Ukraine, if you want to make it a nuclear wasteland?
This sentiment is nuts, in my opinion. Russia isn't the only nation that has nukes folks... everyone around Russia has them too...
If Putin were to nuke a major metropolitan area, it would be the end of Putin (literally) and likely the end of Russia (at least it's current government). The unification of NATO, the EU, and the entire "west" would be so strong and unanimous, there would be no positive outcome for Russia.
Let's stop cowering because one dude threatened the entire world... the world is much bigger than Russia.
"Oh those stupid idiots are scared of nuclear war"
For NATO the borders of its members are red line.
For Putin the red line is borders of Russia, that include Crimea and L/DPR for now.
There is no way Putin leaves Crimea and nukes are not send to the Washington.
The borders of Russia end where Russia gets a bloody snot.
That's truly moronic.
Given the performance of the Russian military what makes you think that Russian nukes (and the people who operate them) are any better?
US intelligence and capabilities are likely much more effective than anyone knows.
Uh, yeah?
If you have nukes you can pretty much do whatever you want, short of launching them at another nuclear power. That's just like, reality.
Remember this the next time everyone bellyaches about "unfair sanctions" or whatever when some country even hints that they're pursuing a nuclear program.
There was something about liberty and safety and deserving neither that some US president said long time ago that I think might very much apply here.
"Henry Kissinger, who wondered in his 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy if extending the American deterrent to all of Europe at a time when the threat of total destruction hung over the US itself would actually work: ‘A reliance on all-out war as the chief deterrent saps our system of alliances in two ways: either our allies feel that any military effort on their part is unnecessary or they may be led to the conviction that peace is preferable to war even on terms almost akin to surrender... [1]"
In summary, the concern you raise is actively discussed in security circles. Post Ukraine, it's increasingly common to see the absolute nuclear taboo questioned.
Until the first nuclear power lobs a tactical nuke and doesn't suffer reprisal, we'll be in an uncomfortable transition period, analogous to the time immediately preceding MAD. (And let's be honest. If Putin lobbed a tactical nuke at Ukraine, does anybody seriously think he'd face military force?)