[Goose]

And yet, on Zelenskyy's NATO/nuclear "or" statement, does this--from an RU politics/policy expert--not ring true: "I bet for Russia, there is no 'or'. There is either Ukraine in NATO and eventually with nukes or no Ukraine."

https://x.com/kirlant/status/1846975575132721206

If Ukraine survives this war it will require some kind of security "arrangement". For Russia, Ukraine surviving as anything but a rump vassal state is unacceptable. For Russia this is the only possible outcome. For that reason they have no opinion on any other possibilities :-). Therefore for the Ukraine to survive Russia must lose this current war and be either unable or unwilling to continue the fight in the near term.

A free and (more or less) intact Ukraine resulting from that victory will require some kind of security "arrangements". Ukraine itself is very very unlikely to construct a credible nuclear deterrent no matter how much time you give them. If it can't achieve some kind of MAD it won't help them. They are not economically strong enough to develop and maintain a credible deterrent. Attempting to do so is a waste of time and money. If Russia was starting from scratch today they probably couldn't do it either. Having the weapons themselves, expensive and difficult as it would be, is not near enough. You have to be able to deliver them reliably if attacked by a Russian first strike. That costs even more money. Having a "North Korea like" or even "Israeli like"  deterrent does Ukraine no good at all. North Korea only wants to deter/threaten non-nuclear neighbors. If any of the "Nuclear 5" had sufficient reason to launch a nuclear strike against them, North Korea's weapons would be useless. It would not survive. Its opponent, while possibly severely damaged, would. North Korea's other problem is that if it gets into a conventional war with any of the "Nuclear 5" resorting to its nuclear capability ensures its total annihilation. Nuclear weapons are no answer at all for Ukraine against Russia for the same reason.

As NATO realized a long time ago even if you have a nuclear deterrent you must be credibly able to fight and win a conventional conflict with Russia. The barriers to using your nuclear weapons are so high that nobody wants to take the risk of using them except in extremis. A full nuclear exchange annihilates both sides. At one point NATO's policy was to fight conventionally as long as possible and then use a tactical nuclear weapon if necessary as a "message". The danger of this policy was obvious and the rapid escalation to MAD was very real. Despite that, when NATO upgraded its forces and looked like it might be able to win a conventional war outright Russia adopted the same "solution".

I have already raised the points that make Ukraine ever joining NATO unlikely. The other question is that even if Ukraine was part of NATO, would the majority of NATO, particularly the US, respond positively to an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine? As of right now, I expect the answer is no. If it were "important" to us, we would be fighting now. That is a real problem for the future. Ukraine also knows from Minsk and Minsk II that bilateral agreements aren't worth much either. IMO the problem is that "the west" doesn't see Ukraine being part of Russia as an existential threat. It was that way for a long time and we are still here. Of course, one can say almost the same thing about all the "Warsaw Pact" states. Lots of rightly nervous people out there. Until that belief publicly and credibly changes, IMO the situation will remain dangerous.

[Goose]

And yet, on Zelenskyy's NATO/nuclear "or" statement, does this--from an RU politics/policy expert--not ring true: "I bet for Russia, there is no 'or'. There is either Ukraine in NATO and eventually with nukes or no Ukraine."

https://x.com/kirlant/status/1846975575132721206

If Ukraine survives this war it will require some kind of security "arrangement". For Russia, Ukraine surviving as anything but a rump vassal state is unacceptable. For Russia this is the only possible outcome. For that reason they have no opinion on any other possibilities :-). Therefore for the Ukraine to survive Russia must lose this current war and be either unable or unwilling to continue the fight in the near term.

A free and (more or less) intact Ukraine resulting from that victory will require some kind of security "arrangements". Ukraine itself is very very unlikely to construct a credible nuclear deterrent no matter how much time you give them. If it can't achieve some kind of MAD it won't help them. They are not economically strong enough to develop and maintain a credible deterrent. Attempting to do so is a waste of time and money. If Russia was starting from scratch today they probably couldn't do it either. Having the weapons themselves, expensive and difficult as it would be, is not near enough. You have to be able to deliver them reliably if attacked by a Russian first strike. That costs even more money. Having a "North Korea like" or even "Israeli like"  deterrent does Ukraine no good at all. North Korea only wants to deter/threaten non-nuclear neighbors. If any of the "Nuclear 5" had sufficient reason to launch a nuclear strike against them, North Korea's weapons would be useless. It would not survive. Its opponent, while possibly severely damaged, would. North Korea's other problem is that if it gets into a conventional war with any of the "Nuclear 5" resorting to its nuclear capability ensures its total annihilation. Nuclear weapons are no answer at all for Ukraine against Russia for the same reason.

As NATO realized a long time ago even if you have a nuclear deterrent you must be credibly able to fight and win a conventional conflict with Russia. The barriers to using your nuclear weapons are so high that nobody wants to take the risk of using them except in extremis. A full nuclear exchange annihilates both sides. At one point NATO's policy was to fight conventionally as long as possible and then use a tactical nuclear weapon if necessary as a "message". The danger of this policy was obvious and the rapid escalation to MAD was very real. Despite that, when NATO upgraded its forces and looked like it might be able to win a conventional war outright Russia adopted the same "solution".

I have already raised the points that make Ukraine ever joining NATO unlikely. The other question is that even if Ukraine was part of NATO, would the majority of NATO, particularly the US, respond positively to an Article 5 invocation by Ukraine? As of right now, I expect the answer is no. If it were "important" to us, we would be fighting now. That is a real problem for the future. Ukraine also knows from Minsk and Minsk II that bilateral agreements aren't worth much either. IMO the problem is that "the west" doesn't see Ukraine being part of Russia as an existential threat. It was that way for a long time and we are still here. Of course, one can say almost the same thing about all the "Warsaw Pact" states. Lots of rightly nervous people out there. Until that belief publicly and credibly changes, IMO the situation will remain dangerous.