With Putin engaged in ominous nuclear sabre rattling since the eve of his invasion of Ukraine, a debate has been raging among nuclear experts over whether and when he might make good on his threats. newstatesman.com/security/2022/…
Although most experts agree that the overall risk of nuclear weapons being used in this conflict remains low, one of these scenarios appears more likely than the other.
If Putin’s objective is the occupation of at least some parts of Ukraine, it is hard to see how the use of a nuclear weapon on the country serves his interests.
However, the prospect for a limited nuclear strike against the United States or Nato seems, relatively, greater.
Indeed, Putin has promised that anyone who stands in his way will face consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history”.
With few concrete answers available, some analysts have looked to the documents that lay out the circumstances under which Russia says it would or could use nuclear weapons for clues.
Moscow’s military doctrine states that:
🔴 Russia “shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies”.
🔴 Or“in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation.”
A 2020 presidential decree further indicates that Moscow could use nuclear weapons in response to;
🔴 “Reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of Russia or its allies”
🔴Or following “the use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies”.
But because Putin’s war on Ukraine falls outside the scope of these protocols, these nuclear policies are neither especially helpful nor reassuring in this case.
Although its conventional capabilities have improved significantly over the last decade, Moscow still relies on its nuclear weapons for flexibility in managing the risk of escalation.
This suggests that Russia would not automatically resort to nuclear weapons to win a conventional war, as some have argued.
What is still unclear is at what stage Moscow might deem its conventional tools to have been exhausted, or what Putin himself might consider an existential threat.
Without knowing where Putin’s red lines are in this conflict, Western policymakers cannot know how to avoid crossing them. newstatesman.com/security/2022/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Researchers persuaded 76 companies, each of which employed between 1,000 and 100,000 employees and worked in 50 or more countries, to take part in their study by switching to at least one meeting-free day per week.
For a company, the organisational problem of meetings is that they usually only benefit one person.
The most common meeting structure is one in which junior employees do the work of providing information to a manager, then wait and watch while others do the same.
In January, Rishi Sunak was the only popular politician in the UK, bucking the near-universal trend for a politician to become more widely disliked as they become better known.
In early February, at the height of partygate, he appeared to hold Boris Johnson’s fate in his hands — and decided not to act.
From George Washington fighting for the Americas to today’s hero, Zelensky, leaders continue to rise from the ashes of history. newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/…
Zelensky, a leader on the periphery of Europe, fighting against impossible odds with Western commentators comparing him to legendary figures of the past with some even willing to risk global war to support him. He is the essence of charisma.
🟥But charisma is a more complicated phenomenon than is often realised. Charisma always resides, at least in part, in the eye of the beholder.
Michael Sheen and Tony Blair discuss the roots of his desire to change Britain.
Blair: "Take the best qualities of Britain - open-mindedness, tolerance, innovation - and try to give Britain a different narrative that would allow it to think its best days are ahead of it.”
Neither the House of Commons dramatics, nor the political theatre of a promised tax cut, saved Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement from being savaged by right, left and centre.
First, says @AndrewMarr9, if you are going to pull a rabbit from a hat, make sure it’s a real, live and twitching rabbit, and not the airy promise of a possible bunny in two years’ time.
National character is a slippery eel; the moment you think you have a grip on it, it’s gone. Its essence is fleeting; its shape shifts constantly and yet you know it when you see it, even if each person sees something different. newstatesman.com/politics/a-dre…
That is true of all nations and yet feels particularly true of Britain.
In the absence of a constitution or a bill of rights we have no foundational documents to refer to, beyond the Magna Carta, which was not even written in English.