| | | I’d hate to see any escalation. But if it happens, it may not even be nukes. The critical issue is the unlimited inflow of weapons. So, all the means by which those weapons enter Ukraine could be, hypothetically, targets - air, sea, roads, railroads. Weapon storage and repair facilities. Bringing weapons into Ukraine would be proclaimed an act of aggression, of participation in the war. If NATO escalates - than all bets are off. I think it would start off with a few small nuclear charges (maybe in both directions) - followed by another waiting period. If everyone will decide they’ve had enough and they’d rather pull back - that would be the moment for real negotiations. If not - then, who knows.
I didn’t think Russia would go for a full invasion. I thought they’d go in and start fight openly on the side of the Donbas - Lugansk resisters. But, they decided differently.
I think it’s becoming clearer why trying to accept Ukraine into nato was a bad idea. Ukraine agreed to the Minsk settlements - but too many forces both inside and outside the country found those accords unacceptable. Instead of granting the Eastern regions some degree of autonomy - as promised - they spent the last 8 years conducting a shooting war against them, killing several thousands. They also built some very impressive fortifications. The only obvious purpose for that buildup must have been the expectation that, at some point, Russia would invade in order to help Donbas. So, the broader invasion from several directions must have been not what they expected.
Is China relevant? For the foreseeable future, always. They know that the US sees them as the #1 adversary. In a sense, this entire war can be seen as a proxy war between the US and China, What can they do? No idea. Possibilities range from nothing - and to full involvement. |
|
