South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warns that if Russia were to detonate a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine, it should be considered an attack on NATO itself because of the inevitable spread of radiation to neighboring countries following such an attack, and he says the response should be “catastrophic to Russia.”
Rare W for Lindsey Graham
Most of the Republicans I know personally (not by choice) are on Putin’s side in this war. Strange that Graham is coming down so hard on Russia.
This is a common sentiment among some online and some politicians, but seems wholly backward from my POV. When it comes to how far one goes for another country, this seems to be the hierarchy:
-willingness to sell arms
-willingness to express concern
-willingness to condemn
-willingness to sanction
-willingness to gift arms
-willingness to intervene in limited fashion (e.g. no fly zone or blockade)
-willingness to fight in a conventional war
-willingness to fight in a nuclear war
There might be a little variation, but I don’t see why NATO/US would fight a nuclear war for Ukraine when they wouldn’t fight a conventional one or even impose a no-fly zone. NATO is a nuclear alliance, and considering a nuclear attack on Ukraine to be a nuclear attack on NATO skips a few highly consequential steps. Why go all the way for a country you wouldn’t even intervene for or fight a conventional war for? It doesn’t make geopolitical sense to me. The nuclear alliance the US (and UK/France) has with Europe and its Pacific allies is already historically unusual in its ultimate sharing of fate (no one can pull out of a treaty in time once the ICBMs are 30 minutes away); I don’t see it extending to non-treatied allies like Ukraine. What’s more likely is essentially banning trade with Russia if you want to trade with the West and no limit to the conventional weapons provided to Ukraine.
4 comments
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warns that if Russia were to detonate a nuclear weapon inside Ukraine, it should be considered an attack on NATO itself because of the inevitable spread of radiation to neighboring countries following such an attack, and he says the response should be “catastrophic to Russia.”
Rare W for Lindsey Graham
Most of the Republicans I know personally (not by choice) are on Putin’s side in this war. Strange that Graham is coming down so hard on Russia.
[https://accountability.gop/ukraine-quotes/](https://accountability.gop/ukraine-quotes/)
This is a common sentiment among some online and some politicians, but seems wholly backward from my POV. When it comes to how far one goes for another country, this seems to be the hierarchy:
-willingness to sell arms
-willingness to express concern
-willingness to condemn
-willingness to sanction
-willingness to gift arms
-willingness to intervene in limited fashion (e.g. no fly zone or blockade)
-willingness to fight in a conventional war
-willingness to fight in a nuclear war
There might be a little variation, but I don’t see why NATO/US would fight a nuclear war for Ukraine when they wouldn’t fight a conventional one or even impose a no-fly zone. NATO is a nuclear alliance, and considering a nuclear attack on Ukraine to be a nuclear attack on NATO skips a few highly consequential steps. Why go all the way for a country you wouldn’t even intervene for or fight a conventional war for? It doesn’t make geopolitical sense to me. The nuclear alliance the US (and UK/France) has with Europe and its Pacific allies is already historically unusual in its ultimate sharing of fate (no one can pull out of a treaty in time once the ICBMs are 30 minutes away); I don’t see it extending to non-treatied allies like Ukraine. What’s more likely is essentially banning trade with Russia if you want to trade with the West and no limit to the conventional weapons provided to Ukraine.