It’s gained currency, especially on the Trumpian Right, as a result of the Wagner Group insurrection, but it remains a dangerous and specious idea.
The Wagner Group’s armed rebellion against the Russian military has inspired hope that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin might soon be ousted from power and, with that, Russian forces withdrawn from all of Ukraine.
Yet, this good news has been met with skepticism by some, especially right-wing apologists for Donald Trump, who warn that Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons; and that political instability in Russia might result in “loose nukes,” which could threaten the world with nuclear armageddon.
The Trumpians. For this reason, say the Trumpians, the United States should be wary of “regime change” in Russia. The implication is that we are better off with the devil we know (Putin) than the devils we don’t know (Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin and perhaps other warlords who might rule over different parts of a fractured and divided Russia).
As Rebekah Koffler, a former U.S. defense intelligence officer, told Fox News this morning:
There’s a real threat of an armed insurrection in Russia, which possesses six thousand nuclear weapons. A lot of them are pointing at the U.S. homeland. And any kind of instability [in Russia] is not good for anyone.
The Chimera of ‘Stability’. But should American foreign policy really be wedded to Russian status quo “stability” because of a fear that Russian nukes might end up lost, unaccounted for, and in the hands of a deranged warlord?
Of course, it goes without saying that the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Russian nuclear weapons are retained and controlled by a legitimate, responsible, and competent state actor. But there is real reason to doubt that the Putin government is any of those things.
The Russian dictator has regularly brandished his country’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, while intimating that he is prepared to use nukes in Ukraine. That is hardly responsible behavior.
As for competence, does the Russian invasion of Ukraine strike anyone as a case study in military competence? And Putin’s legitimacy rests on a mountain of fear, graft, and oppression that has few rivals in the 21st Century.
Appeasing Putin. In short, there is no reason for the United States to embrace or prop up Putin. He does not warrant American support or appeasement. An alternative Russian ruler or rulers could be worse; but if so, it would be a mater of degree not kind.
Moreover, a new, successor regime (or regimes) might be much better for the Russian people and the West.
At the very least, Putin’s ouster from power would weaken Russia and provide the impetus for a possible Russian withdrawal from all of Ukraine. The 1917 Russian Revolution, remember, precipitated the Russian withdrawal from World War I.
A stubborn and ill-advised commitment to status quo “stability,” however, precludes any possibility of positive change within Russia.
Farfetched Scenarios. Finally, suppose the farfetched scenario came true. A dangerous warlord took over part of Russia and assumed control of a “lost” nuke or nukes. Does this mean he can, willy-nilly, detonate his nukes and ignite “World War III”?
No, not at all. Nuclear weapons, after all, are not like a handgun or a rifle. One person cannot simply pick them up, lock-and-load, and fire away. That’s not at all how they work.
An entire series of military and technical experts within the chain of command would have to assent to their use and set in motion the process for their employment and detonation. That’s much easier said than done.
That is why, throughout the Cold War, nuclear weapons never paralyzed American presidents, Republicans and Democrats, into inaction and appeasement vis-à-vis Russia.
American policymakers understood that although nuclear weapons were a quite serious matter, they cannot and do not give our enemies a trump card or veto power over the United States.
Nuclear Weapons. Yet, this doesn’t stop Trump and his acolytes from acting as if nuclear weapons were just discovered yesterday and must, therefore, necessarily upend international relations as they have been been practiced since at least the mid 20th Century.
“First come the tanks and then come the nukes,” Trump declared five months ago. “I think we’re at the most dangerous time maybe in, in many, many years—maybe ever—because of the power of nuclear,” he added.
Never mind the fact that nuclear weapons have been around for some 75 years and yet somehow, we’ve managed to avoid a nuclear war while still winning the Cold War and liberating Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
And never mind the fact that modern-day missile defense technologies render the use of nuclear weapons more suspect and problematic than ever before. As Trump sees it, “the power of nuclear” renders all previous history irrelevant to modern-day challenges.
Trump, of course, is not serious. He is simply fear-mongering in a transparent attempt to win votes and political praise.
The truth is: nuclear weapons do not give U.S. policymakers any reason to appease Putin. And Russia would be better off, and the American national interest would be served, were the Russian dictator to be ousted from power.
True, Putin’s successor might be worse, but Russia would be weakened and its ability to control Crimea and parts of eastern and southern Ukraine likely would be dealt a deathblow.
The bottom line: the United States cannot control who rules Russia. However, by aiding Ukraine, we can help to ensure that whoever rules Russia has limited room for destructive maneuver. American action, not American appeasement, is what history demands.
Feature photo credit: Donald Trump, courtesy of Evan Vucci/AP in The New Yorker.