He makes a good point here though: if the threat of nuclear war stops NATO from intervening now, why wouldn't it stop them from responding to a relatively minor transgression? Do we expect Putin to believe that we won't risk nuclear war to save Ukranians, but we will risk it over the technical violation of a treaty? If the west does nothing now, they will likely be willing to tolerate more and still do nothing. He knows that.
NATO involvement is all or nothing. If we go to war with Russia, it won't end until the world is a cinder. There is no limited engagement. It feels like we all have complete amnesia about the Cold War and the reasons why so many proxy wars were fought. Nuclear powers cannot go toe to toe without destroying the world, as soon as one side perceives that it will lose a conventional conflict they will resort to nuclear weapons. Even if they try to justify it by a limited deployment of tactical nukes on enemy positions just to shift the balance enough to prevent being routed it will almost immediately escalate into strikes on civilian centres and so the world dies. Does nobody understand this anymore? Just reverse the roles in your head and think more than one step ahead.
Personally I don't think the West is "doing nothing". While they could do more (we're still a few days into this conflict, after all, i hope more will come), I fully agree with the strategy of full economic isolation, minimize resource purchasing from Russia (and move towards zero, which will take many years), sanctions, asset seizures of oligarchs, etc. as well as helping Ukraine with absolutely anything they need, but NOT direct military intervention. The moment NATO troops attack Russian troops (or the other way around), then we'll be in WW3. Up until that point, considering Russia has invaded a non-EU, non-NATO member, I think this is as much as the West should do. After all the US got away with something similar against Iraq with nothing more than vague lies about weapons of mass destructions and got zero punishment for it.
Ukraine is not part of NATO!!!! Hence, “NATO” will not ever intervene. Now some individual members of NATO may choose to intervene, but that is not NATO and there is zero treaty to defend Ukraine. The west has not done “nothing” they have crippled Russias economy. Thousands die or billions die. Bad choices but those are the choices.
As far as I understand: NATO is drafted as a defensive (not offensive) alliance. So if Russia attacks a member state, other member states are obliged to go to war. If a member state attacks Russian troops (at least arguably an offensive move) and that escalates into a war between that member state and Russia, than NATO member states would have a very good excuse not to come to that members aid (as it would not technically be a treaty violation).
On the contrary, it's pretty clear what the red lines of NATO are – the territorial and sovereign integrity of its members (with some complicated bits, like the status of Sweden and Finland).
The NATO response has very very much been calibrated for three things:
1. Do not send NATO troops to defend non-NATO members (with caveats, see Sweden/Finland).
2. Damage Putin as much as possible, within the constraints of the previous point, and
3. Try to give Putin a way out (again, complicated because different members have been less confrontational than others, but this has essentially been the theme).
I'm sorry, Gary Kasparov might be good at chess, but he does not understand geopolitics.
I believe he’s demonstrated for years that he does understand Putin, however, and predicted this scenario long in advance.
So you may feel his advice is bad, but it’s also possible, even likely, that we have no good options and his is the most likely route to something resembling peace.
