"the danger of major escalation on the Russian side, even the use of nuclear weapons, becomes unacceptably high"
Before moving onto the other side of the authors mouth, let us consider how preposterous the idea that Russia has conventional military strength sufficient to pose a risk that is "unacceptably high."
Russia has revealed itself to be a paper tiger, alluding back 70 years to World War II in which the Soviet Union was forced to bleed itself white in order to survive under the iron hand of Joseph Stalin is of historical interest but no relevance. Russia does not have the manpower, the matériel, the will, or the coherence to wage effective conventional war against NATO.
That leaves nuclear war, the other side of the authors mouth, as it were:
"Does all of this mean that Russia is bound to “go nuclear” in Ukraine? Not necessarily. Russia is a powerful and resourceful country, despite appearances to the contrary, and it has a long history of acting circumspectly in its encounters with the United States, NATO, and the West—not out of respect so much as fear of Western strength. "
So nuclear war is not necessarily the inevitable Russian response to Western policy in Ukraine. Yet the sub headlines to this story reads as follows:
"This week the West crossed several red lines, bringing us ever closer to a nightmare scenario."
What is the nightmare scenario? Clearly it's not a conventional Russian attack against NATO, that would be about as foolish as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or Hitler's declaration of war against the United States. Russia is clearly not a first-class conventional military power.
As to the nuclear threat, even the author discounts that and if the Western powers do not proceed as though they will not be intimidated by nuclear blackmail, then the West will be, in the words of the author:
"Prosecuting Its Crusade Against Russia with Stunning Naïveté."
The article approaches a bait and switch.
