WORLD ROUNDUPHard Truth About Long Wars | Chemical Weapons in Lebanon | Recalling Argentina’s Junta, and more
··The Hard Truth About Long Wars
Why the Conflict in Ukraine Won’t End Anytime Soon
··Between Enhanced Commitment and Structural Opposition: Nuclear Deterrence in Light of the War in Ukraine
The conflict in Ukraine has made leaders even more convinced of the relevance of nuclear deterrence
··The Role of Nuclear Weapons in Russia’s Strategic Deterrence
Russia has developed a holistic deterrence strategy in which nuclear weapons remain an important element
··Is Putin a Rational Actor? How and Why the Kremlin Might Use the Bomb
The prevailing notion is that rational decision-makers will not risk nuclear war, but human beings may not be such calculating creatures
··Taliban Militants in Pakistan End Ceasefire with Government – Spokesman
Taliban militant have been subjected to repeated Pakistani military attacks
··Hezbollah Transporting Hundreds of Chemical Weapons to Lebanon – Report
The missiles were made in Syria with the help of the IRGC and North Korean scientists
··West African Leaders Seek Solutions to Curb Terrorism from Sahel Region
Accra Initiative aims to prevent spillover of terrorism from the Sahel
··Argentina’s Junta Trial Was About More Than a Few Good Men
A new movie, “Argentina, 1985,” is a strikingly uncomplicated snapshot of a strikingly complicated period in history
The Hard Truth About Long Wars (Christopher Blattman, Foreign Affairs)
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February, few observers imagined that the war would still be raging today. Russian planners did not account for the stern resistance of Ukrainian forces, the enthusiastic support Ukraine would receive from Europe and North America, or the various shortcomings of their own military. Both sides are now dug in, and the fighting could carry on for months, if not years.
Why is this war dragging on? Most conflicts are brief. Over the last two centuries, most wars have lasted an average of three to four months. That brevity owes much to the fact that war is the worst way to settle political differences. As the costs of fighting become apparent, adversaries usually look for a settlement.
Many wars, of course, do last longer. Compromise fails to materialize for three main strategic reasons: when leaders think defeat threatens their very survival, when leaders do not have a clear sense of their strength and that of their enemy, and when leaders fear that their adversary will grow stronger in the future. In Ukraine, all these dynamics keep the war raging.
Between Enhanced Commitment and Structural Opposition: Nuclear Deterrence in Light of the War in Ukraine (Emmanuelle Maitre, Foundation for Strategic Research)
· “The conflict in Ukraine has made P3 leaders even more convinced of the relevance of nuclear deterrence, which now enjoys stronger political support and is being reinforced at the level of NATO. However, several additional and concrete factors must be considered.”
· “Firstly, the recapitalization of nuclear forces in the exact same format demands a significant budgetary effort. This effort leads to peaks in investments which weigh on defense budgets.”
· “The limits do not solely lie in budget issues. Each nation’s industrial and technological base has a limited capacity, which prevents any sudden increase in the order book.”
· “In this context, the margins of maneuver in the short term are limited and it is difficult to swiftly “reinforce the deterrence policy” through building up capabilities without challenging fragile balances. This observation questions the realism of proposals calling for an increase in arsenals, particularly in the United States, even though they are often backed by arguments to the effect that trade-offs are possible in theory, if there is indeed the political will.”
