It's ironic that all of the West's red lines have been about what assistance we're going to provide to Ukraine, or what restrictions apply to the use of weapons we do supply, rather than setting out lines that Russia must not cross. We've ended up crossing a series of our own self-imposed red lines eventually, but only after many Ukrainian lives have been unnecessarily lost or blighted, and Putin unnecessarily emboldened. It's a tragic failure, and it's not yet clear how long that failure will persist.
So far as I know, the Gazprom pipeline, running across Ukraine from Sumy on the Russian border, to Poland, is still in operation. Much to-do was made of the Nordstream pipelines and their destruction, but the Gazprom pipeline has continued in action across an active war zone without interference. The transit agreement is up for renewal in January 2025, but the Ukrainian government gets about a billion USD for the transit rights per year, so it may get renewed. Sales of fossil fuel products from this pipeline to European countries are a major source of income to Russia. Similarly, Russia sells about a billion USD worth of low-enriched reactor-grade uranium to the US each year - this accounts for about a third of the reactor-grade uranium used in the US. So the US is actively bankrolling Russia and has been since the outset of the war, same case for Europe. This seems odd and should be a topic for discussion...
I have read of discussions on both topics, the U.S. is considering limiting or stop the import of Uranium, and read that Ukraine does not intend to renew the transit permit for gas. Russia has also made mention of cutting-off uranium supplies.
All this to say it’s definitely been tossed about, though nothing definitive yet.
Great exposition and summary of how deterrence has been viewed. What is implied but not explicitly stated in your narrative is that deterrence requires credible threats that at times must be carried out to reinforce the credibility.
This has been the Achilles heel of US general deterrence strategy as Obama drew red lines that were never enforced or carried through. Even if there is deterrence through denial, not carrying out credible threats makes it useless. Putin has now done the same thing making his deterrence pointless.
The big issue is learning and psychology. The US has refused to learn and is stuck in an old paradigm and way of thinking.
“Deterrence may be working very well without us being aware of it for much of the time”. Yes, what is perceived as powerful IS powerful – even if you are not aware of it. This makes it very difficult to analyze political power games. Thank you for your attempt!
It seems unlikely that a trump presidency would appreciate the subtleties of deterrence. During Trump's previous presidency, he was restrained from launching a nuclear attack by his advisors. They understood the horrors of a nuclear war. This time around, there are no reasonable advisors, and Trump's childish insanity is much more likely to result in his mindless use of nuclear weapons.
While the scope of moves on this chess-board are very well described, I can't help but think that the most determinative factor influencing this war will be the about-face of the American appetite for supporting it come January 20th. Face-saving on both sides will be the key feature of a settlement. It may not come on day 1 of the Trump Administration as the P-elect has boasted, but I think it will come because there will be no practical alternative, and like most face-saving solution will involve a trade-off of territory for peace and non-alignment. No-body will be fully satisfied, but that's normal in such situations.
It's ironic that all of the West's red lines have been about what assistance we're going to provide to Ukraine, or what restrictions apply to the use of weapons we do supply, rather than setting out lines that Russia must not cross. We've ended up crossing a series of our own self-imposed red lines eventually, but only after many Ukrainian lives have been unnecessarily lost or blighted, and Putin unnecessarily emboldened. It's a tragic failure, and it's not yet clear how long that failure will persist.
So far as I know, the Gazprom pipeline, running across Ukraine from Sumy on the Russian border, to Poland, is still in operation. Much to-do was made of the Nordstream pipelines and their destruction, but the Gazprom pipeline has continued in action across an active war zone without interference. The transit agreement is up for renewal in January 2025, but the Ukrainian government gets about a billion USD for the transit rights per year, so it may get renewed. Sales of fossil fuel products from this pipeline to European countries are a major source of income to Russia. Similarly, Russia sells about a billion USD worth of low-enriched reactor-grade uranium to the US each year - this accounts for about a third of the reactor-grade uranium used in the US. So the US is actively bankrolling Russia and has been since the outset of the war, same case for Europe. This seems odd and should be a topic for discussion...
I have read of discussions on both topics, the U.S. is considering limiting or stop the import of Uranium, and read that Ukraine does not intend to renew the transit permit for gas. Russia has also made mention of cutting-off uranium supplies.
All this to say it’s definitely been tossed about, though nothing definitive yet.
Great exposition and summary of how deterrence has been viewed. What is implied but not explicitly stated in your narrative is that deterrence requires credible threats that at times must be carried out to reinforce the credibility.
This has been the Achilles heel of US general deterrence strategy as Obama drew red lines that were never enforced or carried through. Even if there is deterrence through denial, not carrying out credible threats makes it useless. Putin has now done the same thing making his deterrence pointless.
The big issue is learning and psychology. The US has refused to learn and is stuck in an old paradigm and way of thinking.
“Deterrence may be working very well without us being aware of it for much of the time”. Yes, what is perceived as powerful IS powerful – even if you are not aware of it. This makes it very difficult to analyze political power games. Thank you for your attempt!
It seems unlikely that a trump presidency would appreciate the subtleties of deterrence. During Trump's previous presidency, he was restrained from launching a nuclear attack by his advisors. They understood the horrors of a nuclear war. This time around, there are no reasonable advisors, and Trump's childish insanity is much more likely to result in his mindless use of nuclear weapons.
While the scope of moves on this chess-board are very well described, I can't help but think that the most determinative factor influencing this war will be the about-face of the American appetite for supporting it come January 20th. Face-saving on both sides will be the key feature of a settlement. It may not come on day 1 of the Trump Administration as the P-elect has boasted, but I think it will come because there will be no practical alternative, and like most face-saving solution will involve a trade-off of territory for peace and non-alignment. No-body will be fully satisfied, but that's normal in such situations.