(Meta: writing this in separate comment to enable voting / agreement / discussion separately)
If you want to make the case for tactical nuclear deployment not happening (which I hope is the likely outcome), I want to see a model of how you see things developing differently
I’ll list a few possible timelines. I don’t think any of these is particularly likely, but they are plausible, and together with many other similar courses of events they account for significant chunks of probability mass.
Discontinuity in power in Russia.
Internal turmoil or collapse in Russia (e.g. regions start declaring independence). It becomes clear that nuclear weapons won’t save Russia.
Abrupt cut in western support to Ukraine, including ammunition (e.g. due to another big war). Putin thinks he can win without nuclear weapons.
Russian army starts being competent. Putin thinks he can win without nuclear weapons.
Conflict freezes over winter, then turns into boiling-the-frog: events happening too slowly to trigger nuclear response. Over the years defeat slowly becomes an accepted fact in Russia.
I admit I am biased since I am a Korean, but I see Korean War as an obvious model of War in Ukraine. From June 1950 to June 1951, situation developed rapidly, with wildly moving front. I think War in Ukraine is now in this phase.
From July 1951 to July 1953, ceasefire negotiation was ongoing while war was ongoing, while front barely moved, while lots and lots of soldiers were dying. For two years.
With declassified Soviet papers, we now know why it took two years, and that even two years was a luck. Korean War was a proxy war. It was a war between US and USSR, but North Korea, South Korea, US, China were fighting, and USSR was not! Stalin was in favor of a war where others were fighting and USSR was not. Ceasefire was achieved in 1953, after Stalin was dead.
Similarly, War in Ukraine is a proxy war between US and Russia, but Russia and Ukraine are fighting, and US is not! I think US is in favor of a war where others are fighting and US is not. With absence of Stalin to be dead, I fear the war will continue indefinitely.
I know almost nothing about Korean history, just wondering...
North Korea, South Korea, US, China were fighting
...wouldn’t this make it a proxy war between US and China? Just asking, no strong opinion here.
Anyway, back to Ukraine. I think the years 2014-2021 may have matched your analogy better, if we frame the conflict as a war between Ukraine on one side, and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on the other side, with USA providing material assistance to one side, and Russia providing material assistance and soldiers (denying that, not very plausibly) to the other side.
But this situation changed in February 2022 when Russia threw the full force (without the nukes) of its regular army against Ukraine in a blitzkrieg attack on Kiyv. I am not sure about the proper use of military terminology, but in my opinion this makes it no longer a “proxy war”, but a regular war instead. (Although for political reasons, Russia prefers to call it “special military operation”. Tomato, томато.)
For USA, it remains a proxy war. By the way, not just for USA. Ukraine is also getting a lot of support from Germany, Poland, and many others. Actually, I sent them some of my pocket money, too. You see, Russia made a lot of enemies in Europe. Countries in Eastern Europe (except for Hungary) understand that in a parallel timeline, it could have been them instead. If you think that Americans are belligerent, you should listen to the Polish. While in USA you have Putin apologists like Noam “I see no genocide” Chomsky, in Poland the desire to take revengeon Russia unites people across the political spectrum. Slovakia, where I live, is on the opposite side of Ukraine, so if Russia conquered Ukraine, that would make them our neighbors. No thanks; we still remember the 1968. I guess what I am trying to explain here is that this is not just about USA. The support for Ukraine, both verbal and material, is huge across the Europe.
How long will the war drag on? In a “no nukes” scenario, consider this: Russia sent their best soldiers to Ukraine in February 2022; since then most of them have died. Reinforcements sent recently often have no battle experience, and barely any military training. (To get an idea about the utter incompetence of Russian army, see the YouTube channel of Volodymyr Zolkin, an Ukrainian journalist interviewing lots of Russian POWs. For example this video starts with the captive explaining how he doesn’t even know his official position in the army, because in the chaos no one explained it to him.) Mobilization is not going to make this any better, it will just provide more cannon fodder. That may have worked in WW2 when anyone could have picked up a fallen soldier’s assault rifle and started shooting, but this war is mostly about artillery shooting missiles at each other’s positions, and it does not make any difference how many humans were standing at the place where the missile falls, all of them are now dead. Russians are slowly running out of supplies, and their economy is unable to provide more. (Russian economy in a nutshell: export oil and gas, import everything else. The sanctions are devastating. Russia literally cannot build a vehicle without using foreign components. Their stocks of weapons and ammo are huge, but not unlimited.) During this year, over 60000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, that’s how much USA lost in Vietnam over a decade. Out of the original territory of Ukraine still occupied by Russia, Ukraine conquered about 10% back during September. At this moment, there is no slowing down. (Of course, it is difficult to predict the future.) Note that this all happened without NATO sending any soldiers. And the economies of USA and Europe are capable of producing and sending more material support indefinitely.
This war is already going on for 8 years, and at this moment it seems that the Russian army will fold within 1 year. Ukraine will get all its territory back, and that’s where this story may end (assuming no nukes).
It’s the alternative, where Russia is allowed to attack and keep new territories (Transnistria, Chechnya, Crimea), that leads to another Russian attack in 2 or 3 years, and then again, and then again.
Sorry if this was too mindkilled. Two main points:
for Russia, this is no longer a proxy war; Russian army is directly involved and being decimated;
the indefinite proxy war that you describe is actually what was happening during 2014-2021.
That is the greatest surprise of this war that Russian army is actually much weaker than both sides believed. Without the nukes, this war would already be over, probably with the Polish army marching over Moscow. Because Russia has the nukes, they get to keep their original territory, but should not push their luck.
Wouldn’t this make it a proxy war between US and China?
North Korea and China sought approval and followed orders from USSR. It was assumed so at the time as a common sense, and now we have mountains of incontrovertible evidences from declassified papers.
Anyway, back to Ukraine. I think the years 2014-2021 may have matched your analogy better.
2014-2021 matches 1948-1950 better. Yeosun rebellion by South Korean Workers’ Party had 3000 dead, with similar size of territory affected and with similar intensity.
The support for Ukraine, both verbal and material, is huge across the Europe.
UN intervened in Korean War. 16 countries sent troops to Korean War under UN forces. That doesn’t change the fact that most troops and material support was from US.
That may have worked in WW2 when anyone could have picked up a fallen soldier’s assault rifle and started shooting, but this war is mostly about artillery shooting missiles at each other’s positions, and it does not make any difference how many humans were standing at the place where the missile falls.
You seem to have mistaken ideas about WW2 and Korean War. WW2 too was a war of artillery and air raid, Korean War even more so. Still, numbers are important, and even with complete air superiority US couldn’t repel China’s numbers.
Russians are slowly running out of supplies, and their economy is unable to provide more.
China is the wild card. I agree Russia can’t build much, but China can build pretty much anything.
During this year, over 60,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, that’s how much USA lost in Vietnam over a decade.
US lost >30,000 in Korean War. China lost >180,000. Losses in War in Ukraine, both Russia side and Ukraine side, are not uniquely high compared to Korean War. In other words, Vietnam War was a low intensity war, and is not suitable for comparison. Yes, 60,000/yr should be unsustainable, it’s a terrible loss for humanity, but sadly it’s not.
Out of the original territory of Ukraine still occupied by Russia, Ukraine conquered about 10% back during September.
As you admitted, I see you are not familiar with Korean War. With amphibious landing at Incheon, UN forces conquered back 100% of lost territory in two weeks between 15 September 1950 and 1 October 1950. Within a month (26 October 1950) UN forces reached China-North Korea border.
China is the wild card. I agree Russia can’t build much, but China can build pretty much anything.
I agree that if China does something unexpected, it could change the situation dramatically. As far as I know, that didn’t happen yet. Maybe China is okay with Russia becoming weaker? No idea.
Thank you for the interesting information! I am completely out of my depth here, so no specific reply.
(Meta: writing this in separate comment to enable voting / agreement / discussion separately)
I’ll list a few possible timelines. I don’t think any of these is particularly likely, but they are plausible, and together with many other similar courses of events they account for significant chunks of probability mass.
Discontinuity in power in Russia.
Internal turmoil or collapse in Russia (e.g. regions start declaring independence). It becomes clear that nuclear weapons won’t save Russia.
Abrupt cut in western support to Ukraine, including ammunition (e.g. due to another big war). Putin thinks he can win without nuclear weapons.
Russian army starts being competent. Putin thinks he can win without nuclear weapons.
Conflict freezes over winter, then turns into boiling-the-frog: events happening too slowly to trigger nuclear response. Over the years defeat slowly becomes an accepted fact in Russia.
I admit I am biased since I am a Korean, but I see Korean War as an obvious model of War in Ukraine. From June 1950 to June 1951, situation developed rapidly, with wildly moving front. I think War in Ukraine is now in this phase.
From July 1951 to July 1953, ceasefire negotiation was ongoing while war was ongoing, while front barely moved, while lots and lots of soldiers were dying. For two years.
With declassified Soviet papers, we now know why it took two years, and that even two years was a luck. Korean War was a proxy war. It was a war between US and USSR, but North Korea, South Korea, US, China were fighting, and USSR was not! Stalin was in favor of a war where others were fighting and USSR was not. Ceasefire was achieved in 1953, after Stalin was dead.
Similarly, War in Ukraine is a proxy war between US and Russia, but Russia and Ukraine are fighting, and US is not! I think US is in favor of a war where others are fighting and US is not. With absence of Stalin to be dead, I fear the war will continue indefinitely.
I know almost nothing about Korean history, just wondering...
...wouldn’t this make it a proxy war between US and China? Just asking, no strong opinion here.
Anyway, back to Ukraine. I think the years 2014-2021 may have matched your analogy better, if we frame the conflict as a war between Ukraine on one side, and the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics on the other side, with USA providing material assistance to one side, and Russia providing material assistance and soldiers (denying that, not very plausibly) to the other side.
But this situation changed in February 2022 when Russia threw the full force (without the nukes) of its regular army against Ukraine in a blitzkrieg attack on Kiyv. I am not sure about the proper use of military terminology, but in my opinion this makes it no longer a “proxy war”, but a regular war instead. (Although for political reasons, Russia prefers to call it “special military operation”. Tomato, томато.)
For USA, it remains a proxy war. By the way, not just for USA. Ukraine is also getting a lot of support from Germany, Poland, and many others. Actually, I sent them some of my pocket money, too. You see, Russia made a lot of enemies in Europe. Countries in Eastern Europe (except for Hungary) understand that in a parallel timeline, it could have been them instead. If you think that Americans are belligerent, you should listen to the Polish. While in USA you have Putin apologists like Noam “I see no genocide” Chomsky, in Poland the desire to take revenge on Russia unites people across the political spectrum. Slovakia, where I live, is on the opposite side of Ukraine, so if Russia conquered Ukraine, that would make them our neighbors. No thanks; we still remember the 1968. I guess what I am trying to explain here is that this is not just about USA. The support for Ukraine, both verbal and material, is huge across the Europe.
How long will the war drag on? In a “no nukes” scenario, consider this: Russia sent their best soldiers to Ukraine in February 2022; since then most of them have died. Reinforcements sent recently often have no battle experience, and barely any military training. (To get an idea about the utter incompetence of Russian army, see the YouTube channel of Volodymyr Zolkin, an Ukrainian journalist interviewing lots of Russian POWs. For example this video starts with the captive explaining how he doesn’t even know his official position in the army, because in the chaos no one explained it to him.) Mobilization is not going to make this any better, it will just provide more cannon fodder. That may have worked in WW2 when anyone could have picked up a fallen soldier’s assault rifle and started shooting, but this war is mostly about artillery shooting missiles at each other’s positions, and it does not make any difference how many humans were standing at the place where the missile falls, all of them are now dead. Russians are slowly running out of supplies, and their economy is unable to provide more. (Russian economy in a nutshell: export oil and gas, import everything else. The sanctions are devastating. Russia literally cannot build a vehicle without using foreign components. Their stocks of weapons and ammo are huge, but not unlimited.) During this year, over 60000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine, that’s how much USA lost in Vietnam over a decade. Out of the original territory of Ukraine still occupied by Russia, Ukraine conquered about 10% back during September. At this moment, there is no slowing down. (Of course, it is difficult to predict the future.) Note that this all happened without NATO sending any soldiers. And the economies of USA and Europe are capable of producing and sending more material support indefinitely.
This war is already going on for 8 years, and at this moment it seems that the Russian army will fold within 1 year. Ukraine will get all its territory back, and that’s where this story may end (assuming no nukes).
It’s the alternative, where Russia is allowed to attack and keep new territories (Transnistria, Chechnya, Crimea), that leads to another Russian attack in 2 or 3 years, and then again, and then again.
Sorry if this was too mindkilled. Two main points:
for Russia, this is no longer a proxy war; Russian army is directly involved and being decimated;
the indefinite proxy war that you describe is actually what was happening during 2014-2021.
That is the greatest surprise of this war that Russian army is actually much weaker than both sides believed. Without the nukes, this war would already be over, probably with the Polish army marching over Moscow. Because Russia has the nukes, they get to keep their original territory, but should not push their luck.
North Korea and China sought approval and followed orders from USSR. It was assumed so at the time as a common sense, and now we have mountains of incontrovertible evidences from declassified papers.
2014-2021 matches 1948-1950 better. Yeosun rebellion by South Korean Workers’ Party had 3000 dead, with similar size of territory affected and with similar intensity.
UN intervened in Korean War. 16 countries sent troops to Korean War under UN forces. That doesn’t change the fact that most troops and material support was from US.
You seem to have mistaken ideas about WW2 and Korean War. WW2 too was a war of artillery and air raid, Korean War even more so. Still, numbers are important, and even with complete air superiority US couldn’t repel China’s numbers.
China is the wild card. I agree Russia can’t build much, but China can build pretty much anything.
US lost >30,000 in Korean War. China lost >180,000. Losses in War in Ukraine, both Russia side and Ukraine side, are not uniquely high compared to Korean War. In other words, Vietnam War was a low intensity war, and is not suitable for comparison. Yes, 60,000/yr should be unsustainable, it’s a terrible loss for humanity, but sadly it’s not.
As you admitted, I see you are not familiar with Korean War. With amphibious landing at Incheon, UN forces conquered back 100% of lost territory in two weeks between 15 September 1950 and 1 October 1950. Within a month (26 October 1950) UN forces reached China-North Korea border.
I agree that if China does something unexpected, it could change the situation dramatically. As far as I know, that didn’t happen yet. Maybe China is okay with Russia becoming weaker? No idea.
Thank you for the interesting information! I am completely out of my depth here, so no specific reply.