Everything is possible. It is just a matter of probability. I could say Putin
taking over the entire Ukraine is also possible and certainly what he wants.
But chance of that transpiring is about as slim as Ukraine fighting back
into Moscow. Surely neither scenario is likely to transpire. But look at
it this way. If Zelensky has the will and resources to continue
fighting won't you want them to stop? I understand
nuclear retaliation from Putin is a big risk. But I can also assure
you provided that Ukraine is willing Russian nuclear missiles
can be countered. Putin's fear is once Ukraine becomes a full-fledged
NATO member Russia's nuclear capability will be pretty much rendered
impotent.
Considering you're still struggling to figure out how line breaks work, I'm not sure you're really the person to engage in these analyses. But lets be very clear: nether Russian nor US capability hinges on land-based nuclear weapons which are relatively easy to spot, track, target, and prepare to defend against. Yes, interception is not guaranteed, but it's a lot easier to intercept something that you know is coming.
OpSec dictates we don't know the real numbers, but estimates are that a nuclear missile from Polish-Russian border can reach Moscow in 6.5 minutes. Heck, from London to Moscow is under 15 minutes. But seeing the missiles getting prepped gives big notice, like 15-20 minutes lead time. So about 20-25 minutes to interception. That's a decent lead time if you're expecting war. But a sub in the North Sea or the Black Sea can hit Moscow in 8 minutes with no warning at all and that's far worse.
This is why the whole "the US wants to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine" argument fails, and why Ukraine was no closer to joining NATO in 2021 as they were in 2001: they don't need to. It saves about 30 seconds, if that. So instead of 6.5 minutes it's 6 minutes, and still 15-20 minutes notice. That's not enough of a tactical advantage to worry about. Likewise, it would take a missile 30 minutes to get from Moscow to Washington, plus the 15-20 minutes notice. Or 4 minutes from a sub off the coast with no warning. It's also why no one really cares about putting nukes in space; it's a big waste of money.
But again, OpSec. So you can probably cut the flight times in half, but then early detection and HUMINT means you might be able to add 10-15 minutes to your advanced warning, which is the far bigger factor. Which is why this statement:
The west has the technology to intercept Russian
missiles over Ukraine soil.
is really not that important. It's also not a surprise. Iron Dome had already demonstrated this was reality.
With nuclear missiles Russia is a weak
superpower. Without it they pose no more threat than the inept military
of Saudi and Iran.
But you're only talking about land-based missiles. Russia would still have dozens of submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons. Iran has 1, Saudi has 0. Plus beyond-the-horizon air-launched hypersonic nuclear weapons which I haven't even discussed. Not to mention the analysis of relative military power between those three nations makes it very clear that Russia does still pose a bigger threat. Also neither of those other two you mentioned is "inept".
Of course no Ukrainians in their right mind will
want to risk detonation of one single nuclear missile in their
country to take out Putin in a proxy war for the west.
If you're defending your soil from an invader, it's not a proxy war to you; it's just war. Ukrainians don't go out there every day with the goal of doing America's dirty work in their hearts.
Put it this way,
NATO may not have a concrete plan of having Ukraine marching into
Moscow but if such chance comes up it surely will want to see the
war escalating beyond Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.
No, it won't. The geopolitical cost of that is too high. Have you ever looked into how the Korean War became so big? Truman had authorized MacArthur to repel North Korean aggression and to push them back to the 38th parallel only. He was specifically instructed not to cross that line unless he could confirm Russian and Chinese boots on the grounds. He couldn't confirm it, but he believed that the South lacked the ability to win, so he pressed on, to "defeat the North on their own turf", but it was his actions pushing past the 38th that actually brought Russia and China fully into the conflict, costing 2.5 million lives.
China is refusing to disavow Putin, but he's also not giving him any large-scale outright support. Ditto for India. Cross into Russia in force, anything more than a border skirmish, and you light that powder keg. While you may not be familiar with it, the military commanders are and they will not let Ukraine set it off.
So no, the west still not want to see the war escalate beyond a Russian withdrawal. Even if Russia just withdrew today, that's already all the win the West needs. They've gained intelligence on Russia's capabilities and equipment, they tested some new stuff, they would've decimated Russia's morale and, if they retreat, their ability to wage conflict on any large scale for quite some time. Plus Putin's actions have already helped NATO more than any other expansion, by breaking the neutrality of Sweden and Finland and bringing them into the alliance. There's no need to go further.
By now
the price to pay for not removing Putin to the west is hefty beyond
your imagination.
It's certainly beyond my imagination, because by every metric I use, pushing into Russia would launch the largest, most bloody conflict the world has ever seen. So unless you're saying not removing Putin would somehow be more costly than that, I'm going to say you're very very very wrong.
calgaryherald.com
en.wikipedia.org
