> The Ukrainian operation was a spectacular example of a wider trend: nuclear deterrence is not working

This article reads like clickbait. It ignores the context of the conflict in service of doomerism. It's vapid.

The conflict was about resources. Russia got what it wanted and stopped. People may think the war is about more than that, but it wasn't and isn't from Russia's perspective.

The incident described, was a guerrilla attack. A conventional attack that would provoke a nuclear response, from any nuclear country, would entail taking land from Russia (or a risk of national ground being gained) by a foreign force, capable of colonizing. That's what conventional means, not some checklist like "it must include tanks". Military losses are military losses during a war. Where they occur is incidental.

The deterrence could weaken but I suspect a single use of a nuke could (assuming it doesn't MAD) bring back deterrence by normalising use somewhat.

If you think about post hiroshima...I don't think anyone doubted the US was willing to wipe out cities

So not entirely convinced it's dead