4 Comments

They might want to think about Bio/Chemical option of push comes to shove.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this analysis

Worthy of note: Japan seems to have decided on precisely this kind of non-nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis China. Tokyo announced in 2022 that it would deploy 1,000 long-range cruise missiles in its southern Kyushu island https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/08/21/national/japan-1000-long-range-missiles-china/

These missiles should be stealthier versions of Type 12 missile, with range extended to 900 ultimately 1,500 km https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_12_surface-to-ship_missile#Type_12_surface-to-ship_missile_(future_versions)

However, a future Ukraine that would have succeeded in preserving its independence at the outcome of this war may struggle financially to produce 1,000 long range cruise missiles

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis. Talk about an Ukrainian nuclear weapon is premature given their lack of special nuclear material, as you note.

Expand full comment

Thank you that is a very useful article that provides a much needed explanation of what Ukraine might or might not be able to do. How to deter Russia from a future invasion or a Round 3 is one of the big questions. I have concerns even about NATO membership being sufficient. I feel that, during the Cold War, it was the presence of US troops in Europe, and the direct link they provided to the US nuclear deterrent, that backstopped NATO's deterrent effect. Question: if Ukraine joins NATO, but there are no NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, does Article 5 risk becoming no different from all the other security guarantees Ukraine has been provided?

Expand full comment