Last week, at the ISA’s annual conference, a roundtable discussion examined how much the nuclear taboo had been weakened by the war in Ukraine and Russia’s nuclear brinksmanship. While the answer was varied, the scholars agreed on one thing: Putin’s threats themselves are not a great barometer of any change in the nuclear taboo.
Yesterday marked 75 years since NATO’s founding, notable not only as a mark of longevity but also because, unlike most of the years of NATO’s existence, the alliance is immersed in war. That makes NATO as relevant as ever. But does “relevant” necessarily mean “valuable”? Put simply, is NATO still worth it?
Few themes have featured as prominently in Kremlin propaganda about the war in Ukraine as the supposed persecution of Russian speakers there. It is ironic, then, that Russian President Vladimir Putin has done more harm to the language’s standing than perhaps any other leader in at least a century.
Russian assaults in Chinese-made all terrain vehicles, or ATVs, are now a daily occurrence along the frontlines of the Ukraine war. They indicate how Moscow is adapting its battlefield tactics, and this evolution could change how the Russian state approaches war on a strategic level.
Last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said that the West should consider deploying troops to Ukraine, a suggestion immediately repudiated by several of his European counterparts. But mobilizing a non-NATO military mission to Ukraine would be an effective way for the West to signal its collective resolve against Russia.