Deterrence, strength, and resolve are critical now, not weakness and fear.
With the Russian military reeling from massive casualties, defeats, and a surprise Ukrainian counteroffensive, Vladimir Putin has resorted, once again, to nuclear saber-rattling. Putin himself warned today that he is “not bluffing” about his willingness to use nukes. A key Putin ally, meanwhile, threatened London with a nuclear strike.
Of course, such talk is utterly reckless and dangerous and ought to draw worldwide condemnation. But how should the West—and specifically the United States and NATO—respond? Well, we need to remember several key things:
- First, Russian nuclear saber-rattling is nothing new. It was commonplace in the Cold War and, unfortunately, remains a staple of Russian foreign policy today. Yet, despite decades of this reckless talk, Russia never actually resorted to using nukes; and there is little reason to believe it would resort to using nukes in Ukraine today.
- Second, during the Cold War, Russian nuclear saber-rattling did not paralyze American presidents, Democrat and Republican, and it should not paralyze President Biden now. Nor did Russian nuclear saber-rattling paralyze NATO during the Cold War, and it should not paralyze NATO now.
The West cannot be intimidated and forced to back down each and every time Russia threatens to use nukes. If the West had respond in this way during the Cold War, the West would have lost the Cold War.
- Third, Russian nuclear saber rattling is a reflection of Russian weakness, not Russian strength. As Dr. Mike Martin of King’s College in London points out in The Telegraph this morning:
The Ukraine war has already hollowed out much of the Russian armed forces. This includes the sending of its training battalions into combat, and so the trainers of these mobilised reservists are, in many cases, already dead.
As for equipment, very few Russian soldiers even get body armour, and so much equipment has been destroyed by the Ukrainians that they are already having to press Soviet-era equipment into service.
Most of it belongs in a museum not on a modern battlefield.
Putin is sending these people to their deaths. The Ukrainian armed forces have killed tens of thousands of professional Russian soldiers with the best equipment that Russia could supply. What will they do with this mobilised reserve?
…Putin has shown us this morning that he is not strong, but that he is weak.
Exactly. Russia is losing the war and its military faces the very real prospect of collapse. Putin is resorting to nuclear saber-rattling out of desperation.
- Fourth, if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, this will not change the course of the war. It will not reverse Russia’s battlefield losses or its inability to conquer Ukraine.
Instead, all it will do is result in a more horrific loss of life and the very real danger of nuclear contamination blowing back on Russian military forces and the Russian populace. Putin surely knows this, or at least his military advisers surely know this.
- Fifth, Putin alone cannot launch nuclear weapons. He would need the buy-in of an entire military, and possibly civilian, chain of command. And it is by no means obvious that all of these officials would be so stupid and so reckless as do the unthinkable.
- Sixth, if Russia becomes the first and only country to use nuclear weapons since the Second World War nearly 80 years ago, it will seal its fate as a country thoroughly isolated and shunned for two or three generations at least.
Russia currently enjoys the good offices of China, Turkey, Israel, and India. All of these good offices end the minute Russia crosses the nuclear threshold and does the unthinkable. Putin knows this, and it is a big reason why he is highly unlikely to employ nukes in Ukraine.
- Seventh, the West does not have to respond in kind, with a retaliatory nuclear strike, if Russia employs nuclear weapons in Ukraine. In fact, the West should not do so and almost certainly will not do so.
Why? Because that is completely unnecessary from a military standpoint. NATO has more than sufficient conventional military means to destroy the Russian military in Ukraine and should do so if Putin launches a nuclear weapon there.
Moreover, by responding in kind, NATO and the United States cede the moral and diplomatic high ground in Ukraine. Why do so when that is completely unnecessary?
Ceding the moral and diplomatic high ground risks driving away China, Turkey, Israel, and India, all of whom can then say, in effect, “A pox on both your houses.”
- Eighth, the only time the West should launch a nuclear strike on Russia is if Putin launches a nuclear strike on a NATO country.
In other words, if Russia nukes Warsaw or London, then the West responds in kind with a retaliatory nuclear strike on Moscow. But if Russia nukes Ukraine, then NATO enters the war, destroys the Russian military there, and quickly ends the war with conventional weapons.
That at least is what should happen. Let us hope and pray that that is what President Biden, Prime Minister Truss, and other NATO leaders are communicating privately to Russian government officials.
- Ninth, the way to prevent nuclear war is through the time-tested method of deterrence, which served us well during the Cold War. Weakness and fear are provocative and could well result in a miscalculation by Putin.
The Russians should be under no illusions. If they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, NATO will enter the war, quickly decimate and destroy the Russian military there, and end the war. And if Russia ever dared to launch a nuclear strike on a NATO country, it would result in the utter destruction of Moscow.
That is how we can and will prevent the unthinkable from ever happening. Pray for peace, but prepare for war.
Feature photo credit: YouTube screenshot of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, courtesy of CNN.