Thread by @james_acton32

First panel at #nukecon. Can the Ukraine war end without nuclear use?

@KoriSchake argues that if the U.S. gets intel that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons, it should provide that intel to Ukraine so Kiev can preempt.

.@PatPorter76: U.S. interests in Ukraine are limited. Needs to ask questions about which weapons to supply to Ukraine and what limits (including geographical) it should attach to supply.

As @MMazarr put, Pat is a looming presence over this panel.

.@PSinovets: If Russia uses a nuclear weapon and NATO fails to respond effectively, the entire global nuclear order is at threat. Georgia will be next, then NATO. #nukecon

@PSinovets: We should be prepared to offer Putin something (arms control related perhaps) that he can sell domestically as a victory in order to end the war. #nukecon

.@KoriSchake: The U.S. should not punish Ukraine’s success by imposing constraints on Ukraine’s use of US-supplied weapons. The benefits of supporting Ukraine’s efforts to reclaim all its territory for the sake of international order outweigh the escalation risks. #nukecon

.@PatPorter76: This isn’t a war for global order. U.S. interests are more limited: protecting NATO’s eastern flank. Russia’s use of a nuclear weapon would be appalling but would not open the floodgates to nuclear-armed aggressors’ infringing actual U.S. vital interests. #nukecon

.@PatPorter76: It is in U.S. interests to limit support to Ukraine so it cannot take back Crimea. #nukecon

.@KoriSchake: Any concessions to Russia should be given by US and not Ukraine. Open to arms control ideas, eg new conventional forces in Europe arrangement. #nukecon

A note of agreement among the panelists: they’re all worried (to varying degrees) about nuclear use over the next few months. 😱😱😱 #nukecon

Into Q&A now… @PatPorter76: a precedent of Russian nuclear blackmail would be bad, but compared to what? We’re comparing “bitter poisons here.” [The other poison being nuclear war.] #nukecon

.@KoriSchake is asked whether Ukraine has the capabilities to preempt Russias nuclear use. Indicates U.S. should supply intel and weapons (since effects of nuclear use would be so bad for Ukraine). #nukecon (cc @shashj)

Interesting disagreement between @PSinovets and @KoriSchake. The former places more weight on recent statements from Russian MFA officials denying any possibility of nuclear use by Russia. #nukecon

@PatPorter76: stop checking Twitter while your on you’re on a panel!

Another interesting disagreement between @PSinovets and @KoriSchake. The latter is more concerned about regime change in Russia and who comes next after Putin. #nukecon

.@KoriSchake: consistently supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including one Crimea, isn’t a hope based strategy [the hope being that Putin doesn’t use nukes]. It’s less risky than conceding to Russian demands. #nukecon

.@PSinovets: Chinese and Indian pressure is unlikely to directly influence Russian decision-making.

The west is deterred by Russian nuclear threats, Ukraine is not. #nukecon

.@PatPorter76 responds. Ukrainian interests are literally existential. Russian threats to destroy Ukraine with nuclear weapons aren’t effective if the alternative is being destroyed anyway! But NATO’s nuclear weapons has allowed it to supply weapons to Ukraine. #nukecon

Also @PatPorter76 questions bias against proliferation. UK is nuclear armed, so is US. Australia should also consider. (!) #nukecon

Last word to @KoriSchake: Ukraine, a nonnuclear weapon state, winning this war against Russia, a nuclear weapon state, would be great for nonproliferation. #nukecon