Except a broken clock can be right twice a day, here the extrapolation I dont think is an exaggeration but a very likely outcome.
If in 2019 December, you warned the world about a pandemic, you would've been laughed out of the room. Same here, we are on a trajectory towards a massive war.
You can always tell when the mainstream media is who usually airs on the side of sensationalism tries to quell fears and attack people for being fringe.
I'm afraid Zeihan is very correct this time, not only on China but the outcome of this Russian conflict. Ukraine won't be the last country for Russia to touch, there will be more and it's going to come down to a nuclear stand off.
Zeihan points out that there is no NATO response for a tactical nuke detonation. If Ukraine receives an artillery strike with a low yield nuclear warhead it would immediately send NATO to its highest combat ready status but it will not sacrifice its major cities to protect a smaller non-EU country.
Zeihan points out that there is no NATO response for a tactical nuke detonation. If Ukraine receives an artillery strike with a low yield nuclear warhead it would immediately send NATO to its highest combat ready status but it will not sacrifice its major cities to protect a smaller non-EU country.
Not that simple. A nuclear attack against Ukraine would put the Budapest Memorandum into play. In such a situation there will be a huge debate about the meaning of "security assurances" as opposed to "security guarantees," but the longer the US permits such a debate to go on, the worse it will look.
Turning our backs on Ukraine under such circumstances would make the Bay of Pigs look downright honorable by comparison. There will be a lot of pressure to respond with force.
The way I see it, anything can happen, and putting a label "very likely" on it as it comes to nukes, is suspicious. You'd need to be exceptionally close to the source of decision making to call this likely, you can't just base it on speculation.
I've seen other argue that Russia's nukes probably won't even work. They haven't done a test since forever.
You have to be more specific, the world ending ICBM nukes will likely never be used but a tactile nukes have been deployed in the field and does not come with the same cadence of lauching ICBM from subs.
I suggest found it weird that NATO would declare first that they have no treaty response for tactical nukes (sub 1KT) being used.
If they are using SAM missiles meant to take down combat aircraft to attack ground targets, it means they are running out of missiles. Contrary to the popular opinion that the war will end when he runs out of missile, I believe Putin will opt for tactical nukes if somebody calls his bluff
Doing so would immediately draw lines in the sand in Europe
Wish I saved the link but recently there was an article documenting the exact opposite: every time somebody answers Russia's bluff, they back off and compromise.
If in 2019 December, you warned the world about a pandemic, you would've been laughed out of the room. Same here, we are on a trajectory towards a massive war.
You can always tell when the mainstream media is who usually airs on the side of sensationalism tries to quell fears and attack people for being fringe.
I'm afraid Zeihan is very correct this time, not only on China but the outcome of this Russian conflict. Ukraine won't be the last country for Russia to touch, there will be more and it's going to come down to a nuclear stand off.
Zeihan points out that there is no NATO response for a tactical nuke detonation. If Ukraine receives an artillery strike with a low yield nuclear warhead it would immediately send NATO to its highest combat ready status but it will not sacrifice its major cities to protect a smaller non-EU country.