A Nuclear Zugzwang?

policytensor.substack.com

2 pointsleobg5 comments

> For if Russia loses, it loses its entire world position. But if Ukraine loses, or the war ends in a stalemate, the United States’s world position will hardly be affected. So the balance of resolve is extremely unfavorable to the United States. [...]

> If the Ukrainians are indeed becoming so strong that a collapse of the Russian war effort, and therefore nuclear escalation, is becoming likely, then the US must seek to thwart such a dangerous and risky scenario.

I think this understates the risk to the US. If the US does not support Ukraine, it loses its moral position in the world. It retains (most of) its military position, but that is not the core of the US strength and influence.

The US may be in the more "morally correct" position on Ukraine, but it hardly has a reputation for its "moral position in the world". It has managed to retain hard and soft power through its own invasions, and would likely not give up any of either if negotiating deescalation in Ukraine to avoid nuclear armageddon.

A perfect reputation? No.

More perfect than Russia? Than China? Yes.

Sure. But that is not relevant to the original point: if its own imperialist missteps this century did not do it, deescalation here will absolutely not wreck the US's reputation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com