Thread by @DrRadchenko

So to reflect a bit on Snyder's NYT oped: nytimes.com/2023/05/09/opi…. The key argument is that nuclear powers have lost wars. The examples include US wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the French in Algeria and the collapse of the British Empire.

The historical examples are not convincing. Vietnam and Afghanistan were both counter-insurgencies (minimising the usefulness of nukes). Still, Snyder could've reflected on Fracture Jaw (a plan, ultimately killed by LBJ, to use tactical nukes in Vietnam): warontherocks.com/2018/10/how-cl….

Previously, the US military considered the use of nuclear weapons in the 2nd Taiwan Straits crisis (1958), though thankfully Eisenhower didn't think it was a good idea. Of course, the story of possible US use of nukes in Korea is well known.

Rather than saying: oh, look, they never used nukes, responsible historians should say: hmmm, you see, they could have actually used nukes, so we should count our blessings that nukes were not used.

But, to return to nukes in Afghanistan: the Soviets actually were in control of Afghanistan, so it didn't make sense to nuke anyone there, unless they wanted to nuke themselves, or to nuke random mountain villages (and to my knowledge, this was never even considered).

Neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan were defined as existential conflicts. Thus, when Gorbachev considered pulling out from Afghanistan, he did not once say: you know what, this is existential for us, so we can't afford to leave.

The US lost a war in Vietnam but it was not an existential conflict for the US. (Though of course it proved existential for LBJ's presidency). So, historical parallels here are rather misleading. We need to be aware of these differences.

Now, someone might say, actually this war is also not existential for Russia, and in fact this is what Snyder implies. And that's a valid argument. It can be debated one way or another, but it *can't* be definitely settled, because we can't get inside Putin's head.

Some additional minor points. I am not convinced the Russians are not already pariahs. Also, I am not convinced that we understand what "dramatic" means in this case, and whether the prospect of a dramatic (but surely non-nuclear?) response from the US will deter Russia.

Hmmm. I can think of at least one thing that will be even more humiliating for Russia than not taking Kyiv in three days.

This literally doesn't make any sense, as colleagues have already pointed out.

This is correct, but by saying this, Snyder contradicts himself, because he allows that nukes are not just for propaganda, and can actually be used. And why can't they be in this conflict? Ah, I see, it's because there are 11 time zones for the Russians to retreat to. Got it.

Anyway, all these discussions are kind of circular. Are we helping the Russians by talking about the nuclear threat? Of course we are. Would the nuclear threat disappear if we stopped talking about it? Like hell it would.