To Avert Armageddon, Push for a Cease-Fire in Ukraine
▻https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/12/nuclear-war-ukraine-russia-putin-zelensky-china-india-cease-fire
Forcing a cornered nuclear-armed state led by a man who sees his misguided war as an existential struggle into a complete and humiliating retreat poses far greater risks than the benefits of trying to recapture every square mile of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian forces.
A negotiated cease-fire, with strong enforcement, is the best option.
[...] Fighting Russian forces until Putin decides to use #nuclear weapons as a last recourse may feel like a pursuit of justice against despots, but once nuclear weapons are unleashed, no one knows how to prevent the destruction from escalating. If the West presses forward, do the Russians quit or do they use more nuclear weapons in the hope that this time, the West concludes #Ukraine should stop? After Russia has used nuclear weapons in two rounds of fighting, the pressure would grow on U.S. and other leaders to hit back with even more nuclear force. Indeed, no one has described a nuclear exchange that would be tolerable for the United States, Europe, and Ukraine as well as destructive enough to drive Russian forces back to Russia’s pre-2022 or pre-2014 borders.
This is why Biden said on Thursday, “I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.” And this is why retired Gen. John Hyten, former commander of U.S. nuclear forces, said in July 2018 that every nuclear war exercise “ends the same way every time. It ends bad. And the bad meaning it ends with global nuclear war.”
Armageddon, or even a smaller nuclear war, would certainly not serve the interests of the Ukrainian population that NATO is trying to defend—or the world more broadly. A negotiated cease-fire before nuclear use started would be preferable for all parties. Similarly, after nuclear use begins, a decision to negotiate an end to the fighting, or at least the nuclear fighting, would be saner than continuing. But that, too, would leave the whole world worse off than if a cease-fire had been pursued earlier.
Instead of being accused of rewarding nuclear threats with compromise and a cease-fire, Western leaders would, at that point, be accused of rewarding the actual use of nuclear weapons. The message to other nuclear-armed states would then be that nuclear threats don’t work and they must actually use the weapons.
