Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is proposing that an eyeball-to-eyeball nuclear showdown—a “Cuban missile crisis on steroids” that could result over a Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea—would make it “easier” to settle the Russia-Ukraine war—on British terms. This, from the institution which describes itself as “the world’s oldest and the U.K.’s leading defense and security think tank.”
This stunning proposition is outlined in Chalmers article, “This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks—Especially in Relation to Crimea,” published May 20 by RUSI. RUSI featured it in its weekly newsletter, and reports that an abbreviated version of the article had been published May 14 in the Financial Times. In it, Chalmers methodically discusses how Russia could be forced into a nuclear confrontation, from which, he assumes, it would ultimately back down.
Chalmers describes NATO’s strategy over the last three months as that of “boiling the Russian frog": progressively increasing the size and sophistication of its weapons supplied to Ukraine. Because of those weapons, Ukraine may be in a position to reverse Russia’s recent territorial gains, and retake Kherson and Mariupol. That, however, would not occasion a nuclear threat; nor would Ukraine using those weapons and territorial gains “to destroy bridges, railheads, storage sites and air bases” inside Russia.
But, should Ukraine move to retake Crimea, strike at the “tempting target” of the Kerch Bridge, for example, now that could lead to a “Crimea Missile Crisis,” Chalmers argues.
