Should America go all-in on Ukraine?To dismiss Putin's nuclear threat means not to understand that Moscow is not joking, and this is careless and dangerous, the author of the article in TAC believes.
He calls America's rejection of diplomacy an irresponsible step that could lead to a third world War.
David SacksThe same media that told us that Putin is crazy, now, seeing no contradiction, assure us that he will never use tactical nuclear weapons, even to avoid defeat in Ukraine.
"Don't be fooled by Putin's bluff," Max Boot, an exemplary neoconservative hawk, admonished us, who at one time pushed us to the war in Iraq with his lies about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's alleged involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Considering how many times Booth has been wrong over the past 20 years, he should have behaved more modestly, but he resolutely shrugs off Putin's nuclear threat. Being a neoconservative in Washington means never apologizing.
At the same time, neocons in the media and academia are far from the only ones who blithely assure us that Putin is bluffing. The former ambassador to Russia, and now Stanford professor Michael McFaul, intoxicated by the success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, even said that it was time for the United States to go all-in on Ukraine: supply it with "more and better" weapons and tighten sanctions. It is clear that he also rejects the nuclear threat.
Columnist Charles Pierce (Charles Pierce) ridiculed Putin in Esquire magazine, saying that he "looks like a picture and works for the public," and his speech "reeks of a giant bluff a mile away." The Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin also brushed off the threat, and called on the West to strengthen support for Ukraine. "Putin and his entourage have threatened nuclear weapons more than once in recent years — but they bluffed every time," she wrote. Michael Clarke, a professor of military studies at King's College London, told NBC News that Putin "doubles the political stakes because he loses militarily." "After he himself stressed that this was not a bluff, everything became clear — he gave himself away," he concluded.
Locked in their ivory towers, most of these commentators from the media, academia or government bureaucracy have never known the risk. They never compared income and expenses and did not even play poker for big money. But at the same time they assure that they know for sure what Putin's cards are and how he will play them. Smart poker players understand that they do not know the opponent's cards, so they evaluate the whole range of possibilities, and then figure out what he has — a "sure thing" or a bluff?
How does Putin behave in Ukraine? Since 2008, Moscow has constantly warned that Ukraine's accession to NATO is an unacceptable red line for Russia's security, and that it will not tolerate American troops, weapons and bases on its most vulnerable border. The current director of the CIA and former ambassador to Moscow, Bill Burns, conveyed these concerns to Washington in a notorious note entitled "No, so no." Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have repeatedly warned that NATO weapons on the territory of Ukraine — especially missile systems that can hit Moscow in a matter of minutes — Russia perceives as a threat to its existence. Putin has repeatedly warned that he would send troops to Ukraine if these security problems were not resolved — and he did so. This decision can be called immoral, criminal and barbaric, but not a bluff.
When he feels threatened, Putin becomes ruthless and calculating. Biden and the West are ratcheting up the pressure, and the threat to Putin's survival is getting stronger. Russian radicals already believe that Putin is not behaving harshly enough and are demanding more troops and weapons — they even called the partial mobilization of 300,000 soldiers a half-measure. The complete defeat of Russia, according to the West, implies not only a return to the borders before February 24, but also the return of Crimea, where a large naval base in Sevastopol with the Russian Black Sea Fleet is located. Putin, if he comes to terms with this, will certainly face a violent coup, so he will have an incentive to use all the means at his disposal to prevent this.
But perhaps the best reason to seriously think about the unthinkable in Ukraine is that our own leaders used nuclear weapons or were ready for it, and at least three times. We are still the only Power in the world that launched a nuclear strike in the midst of a war. Weighing the prospect of a bloody ground operation that would have claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, President Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. I am sure that this choice haunted him until his death, but in the circumstances we found it quite rational and even justified.
Five years later, General Douglas MacArthur proposed to detonate from twenty to thirty atomic bombs for the sake of victory in the Korean War. So he hoped to prevent a second invasion of China from the north by irradiating the border so much that the enemy army could not cross it for at least half a century or even longer. Someone will object that MacArthur is crazy, but he was considered the most respected man in America until Truman fired him. As a result, Truman's ratings fell so much that in 1952 he did not even run for re-election. It is clear that not everyone considered MacArthur a madman.
At the height of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, our generals put on President Kennedy's table a plan for strikes against Russian missile sites in Cuba and more extensive plans for a nuclear war with Russia in the event of a response. Fortunately, Kennedy was clever and cunning: well aware of the consequences, he did not give them a go. Instead, he sent his brother Bobby to negotiate with the Soviets through unofficial channels. Bobby made a secret deal: we took the Jupiter missiles out of Turkey, and the Soviets brought their own from Cuba. The Generals and Congress accused him of collusion, but he saved the world from possible destruction.
If our own generals were ready to use nuclear weapons to win the war, save the lives of our soldiers and prevent a neighbor from joining a hostile military alliance, is it really so inconceivable that Putin would come to such conclusions — especially if he is cornered?
This is not the most likely scenario — and as the partial mobilization shows, Putin has other options on the escalation ladder before the "Doomsday". However, a nuclear strike is in the range of possible if the escalation of the conflict continues. Paradoxically, the more the West weakens Putin and Russia in Ukraine with conventional weapons, the higher the risk that the Russians will resort to unconventional weapons.
Why should the "hawks" and their media allies downplay the nuclear threat? Because if you sort out all the risks on the shelves, the American people will certainly be interested in why the United States became a participant in an indirect war against Russia. Maybe we don't pull the trigger, but we arm and train the Ukrainian military, our special forces coordinate the transfer of weapons, our adjustment of fire led to the death of Russian generals and the flagship cruiser "Moscow" and, finally, we planned the last Ukrainian counteroffensive. And instead of doing it secretly in accordance with the rules of the Cold War, officials openly brag about their actions — even that they control the operations of the Armed Forces and supply them with more and more advanced weapons systems.
Putin sees all this and has made a not unreasonable conclusion that the West is already at war with Russia. Therefore, we must at least have a clear idea of the consequences. Poker-wise, it's not even close to a freeroll.
But in one thing Max Booth is right about nuclear threats: "If the West succumbs to Putin's nuclear blackmail, what will prevent him from declaring Kiev as Russian territory tomorrow (he obviously thinks so)? Or Tallinn? Or Tbilisi? Or even Warsaw or Helsinki? We cannot live in a world where an evil dictator redraws international borders at his discretion under the threat of a nuclear catastrophe."
If we put aside the ridiculous domino effect that neoconservatives are running around with, then Booth is right that we cannot succumb to Putin's threats. However, war and pacification are not our only options. In his speech, Putin left a gap for a diplomatic solution, praising Turkey's peace efforts — they almost bore fruit until Boris Johnson prevented them. The United States could revive a similar deal: Ukraine's neutrality in exchange for Western weapons and security guarantees, as well as referendums in Crimea and Donbas under the auspices of UN peacekeepers and international observers.
Putin believes that fake referendums in the four regions of Ukraine occupied by Russia will allegedly support the principle of self-government. This is ridiculous, but why not take him at his word: if we offer free and fair referendums under the auspices of the UN, what will he be able to object to? It will not be appeasement, but the principle of self-determination. If the United States really started a worldwide struggle between Democracy and Despotism, which the current administration constantly tells us about, then how can we deprive the Crimeans and residents of Donbass of democracy?
Dismissing diplomacy when the stakes are so high is deeply irresponsible. Max Booth's colleague at The Washington Post, David Ignatius, in his latest column called on the administration to recall the Cuban missile crisis and learn lessons for Ukraine. But, as we have already said, the main lesson of that crisis was precisely to dismiss the military advice of the "hawks" and look for a compromise behind the scenes. However, instead, we reject Moscow's concerns about security, considering it feigned and unfounded — if not a pretext for military aggression. Russia also ignored our security concerns at the beginning of the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately, in 1962, our leaders did not give up trying to find a diplomatic solution and found a creative way to negotiate.
Washington sat down to play high-stakes poker with an opponent who had just declared that he was ready to go all-in. Are we ready to respond in kind, as Professor McFaul calls for? Strong poker players know that it is necessary to monitor the bets so that they do not have to play "for everything". Such moments are unprofitable for strong players who have the best chances of a long-term victory. In the current situation, we are the strong player, and time is on our side. If we were faced with a real security threat, we would take a greater risk, but this is not the case.
It makes no sense for the United States to play "for everything" because of the Donbass, which no American president has named among his blood interests. Risking a third world war with a desperate nuclear power when vital security interests are not at stake and diplomatic opportunities have not yet been exhausted is a reckless strategy. Poker is definitely not played like that. This is already Russian roulette.
David Sachs is a venture capitalist and co—host of the podcast "For Everything!"
