Daniel Brask

I received several reactions to the discussion I hosted about how nuclear weapons may be used against Europe to restore deterrence. To be clear, this is not a normative argument about what I think should happen or what I think is just. My argument is what I think will happen. European leaders have become so deeply involved in the attacks on Russia that the Kremlin is under great pressure to restore its deterrence. Once Russia retaliates with conventional weapons against European targets (weapons facilities, logistics centres), the Europeans will more forcefully attack Russia. At this point, I believe that it is more likely than not that Russia could launch a limited nuclear strike (with tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic). This should not be a controversial prediction. NATO countries are doing the war planning; their intelligence agencies are doing the targeting; their contractors are pulling the trigger; they are supplying the long-range weapons; and they are also using NATO territory to strike Russia. This will only escalate as the Europeans are talking about mass-producing long-range weapons for "Ukraine" to strike deeper and deeper inside Russia, and are setting dates for when Europe will directly attack. Our political leaders are obsessed with defeating the world's largest nuclear power, which considers itself to be fighting in a war for its existence. It should worry us that our political leaders did not define what a NATO victory looks like in this scenario, and we should also be worried that our political leaders have incrementally become so directly involved in attacks on Russia and still pretend it is merely a war between Russia and Ukraine. Our political leaders sabotaged both the Minsk peace agreement and the Istanbul agreement, and then shut down all diplomacy for more than 4 years while declaring that "weapons are the path to peace". It is obligatory in Europe to pretend this is about "helping Ukraine", but this is dangerous self-delusion. Where exactly did we think this was heading? Is nuclear war not the obvious end? Can anyone imagine it ending in any different ways if we had done this during the Cold War or if Russia were now similarly attacking the US through a proxy? Biden once said that sending F-16s meant World War 3, yet now it has become controversial to point out that NATO clearly crossing the line between proxy war and direct war will trigger a nuclear war. I see no morality in such self-delusion. NATO escalations are now out of control, we are heading to war, and that war will not be limited to conventional weapons. The fact that this is dismissed as a "pro-Russian" argument demonstrates how completely lost we have become in mindless war propaganda. youtu.be/Q8PT0jiemKc