Facing defeat in its war on Ukraine, Russia is renewing its threats against the West.
In response to Russia’s invasion, Sweden and Finland are very likely to apply for NATO membership. Both nations will soon reach NATO’s 2%-of-GDP defense spending target (unlike many current NATO members), and Finland, in particular, has a warrior culture that would greatly reinforce NATO’s deterrent posture. But Russia isn’t happy with their looming accession to the alliance. Moscow is warning that their NATO membership will result in the Kremlin’s deployment of nuclear weapons to its Kaliningrad exclave.
It’s a threat deserving of plain rejection.
For one, Russia already retains nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Second, if Russian President Vladimir Putin really wanted to avoid NATO enlargement (something he complained about before invading Ukraine), maybe he shouldn’t have started the most major war in Europe since the end of the Second World War?
This was only the first Russian rush to the escalation ramparts this week.
As the Washington Post reports, Russia has issued the United States with a formal diplomatic démarche (position message) over the West’s continued arms supplies to Ukraine. The démarche warned the U.S. not to deliver Ukraine the “most sensitive” weapons, such as multiple launch rocket systems. That warning supports my concern that the reason the U.S. is delivering cannon artillery instead of MLRS units is because it fears Russian escalation.
Of course, on paper, the Biden administration’s strategy of cautious support for Ukraine is sensible. Very few people want the bloodshed in Ukraine to ripple into bordering NATO states. Very few people want a third world war in Europe, in which Americans must again play an outsize role. (In no small part, by the way, because major Western powers such as France, Germany, and Italy have systematically failed to bear anywhere near their fair share of defensive burdens. Why, for example, is the U.S. Air Force doing nearly all of the refueling of NATO air patrols near Ukraine?) Very few people want escalation that risks a nuclear exchange.
While I respect these concerns, I believe they are fundamentally misguided. Biden shouldn’t just continue supplying arms to Ukraine — he should direct his national security council to expand those supplies in scale and systems, including those Russia has warned against, and stop delaying the delivery of supplies already pledged.
The top line is twofold.
First, Ukraine is a sovereign democracy resisting a corrupted regime’s effort to destroy its statehood and subjugate its people. American values and the defense of the democratic international order require the support of Ukraine. China is watching as it ponders its own invasion of Taiwan and subjugation of the Indo-Pacific. Since when did the U.S. sacrifice its vital interests and sacred values at the altar of a threatening foreign power?
Second, Russia’s escalation threats take root in desperation rather than credible intent. Russia’s combat performance in Ukraine will have only reinforced NATO’s relative deterrent power in Russian military eyes. Russia is unlikely to launch even one limited strike on a NATO member. Why?
Because, if American resolve holds, Putin knows he cannot dominate the escalation curve. At a minimum, any limited Russian attack against NATO would consolidate the world in support of far harsher sanctions on Russia. Even China would likely abandon Russia at that point, fearing irreparable damage to its critical foreign policy concern: expanding its influence in Europe at America’s expense. Putin and his primary sidekick Nikolai Patrushev might be ideologues devoted to a grand imperial destiny, but many senior figures in the security services and military prefer relative stability and retention of their corrupt personal wealth. Similarly, the oligarchs, the ultimate lifeblood of the Kremlin patronage networks, do not want a war that denies yet more access to Western luxury.
Moreover, the Russian leader’s escalating outbursts and domestic crackdowns evince not his confidence but his increasingly unveiled insecurities. And relevant to that most consequential level of conflict, nuclear war, Putin is neither insane nor irrational. While Russia has developed potent strategic weapons, most of its nuclear forces are aged and held at poor readiness.
A nuclear war with the West would be catastrophic for all sides, including the U.S., and must be avoided so far as is possible. Still, Russia, not the U.S., would face its annihilation as a state if nuclear war occurred. Before they could launch their weapons, most Russian ballistic missile submarines would be sunk by U.S. or British attack submarines, and many Russian bombers would be destroyed. Ground-based Russian missiles would wreak havoc on Washington, D.C., and other key targets, but I understand that many of these missiles lack fuel and reliability (due to part stripping by corrupt military officers). Russian commanders know all this. Hence why most Western intelligence officials I have talked to believe they would remove Putin from power if he ordered a unilateral nuclear strike.
Put another way, Biden should take a stand for what’s both morally right and in America’s exigent national interest. The U.S.-led post-Second World War democratic international order is imperfect. It has allowed free-riding by major European powers. Trade deals have benefited most people but also impoverished too many. Nevertheless, that international order has also brought unprecedented freedom and prosperity to Americans and the people of the world. Russia seeks to shred that order in Ukraine.
The President of the United States shouldn’t bend the knee in the face of Putin’s aggressive threats.
