Thank you Kori. Ukrainian language version here
warontherocks.com/2025/11/%D0%...

Without more compellence certainly. But you may be right either way. Thanks for engaging

The idea is to get to "yes" on easier concepts and broad principles to gain momentum and start real talks before tackling the difficult details and most contested disputes.

Very different from the 28-point Witkoff plan which tried to settle too much up front

Appreciate the input Chris. Submissions always welcome warontherocks.com/submissions

Putin understands that crossing the nuclear threshold would shatter what remains of his leverage, unite the West even further, and invite catastrophic consequences.

His bluster is a symptom of weakness, not strength. The world should treat it accordingly: with vigilance, but without fear.

When the primary audience is the world, he is hoping it will get Washington to take his maximalist and uncompromising demands more seriously. Each time he brandishes the nuclear card it is aimed at political deterrence, not actual escalation.

The audience is both domestic & international. He's done this before elections (2018) & in response to economic contractions (2015). The aim is to look strong. He's also done this when international aims falter (as the invasion of Ukraine failed in 2022) or are at risk (today).

Yes but that's not what the article is about. The article explicitly is about what happens in the world where that has failed to happen/work

It seems like the direction of travel of our political system risks us heading in a post-liberal direction. Others have made this observation on both the left and the right. It doesn't seem imprudent to publish an article on how this might affect the US military profession.

First please let me ask you, what do you think the piece was arguing/about?