In 1962, the USSR ceded to the United States, and a nuclear collision was avoided, writes TAC. Now it's Washington's turn. He must find the wisdom and courage to give in to Russia in the staring, the author believes. Otherwise, it is the United States that will be the instigators of "nuclear Armageddon".
Ted CarpenterIn the 1950s, it was very common for male teenagers with excess testosterone to play a game called "car chicken".
This is a more dangerous version of the famous staring game. Two drivers on a deserted road were directing cars towards each other at high speed, and their friends and classmates were watching from the side and cheering. It was assumed that one of the teenagers would turn aside at the last moment and avoid a catastrophic collision. But then this youngster will be ridiculed for being a "chicken". This perverse display of masculinity was even immortalized in James Dean's cult film Rebel Without a Cause.
The popularity of scary racing "peepers" quickly faded, because it often happened that none of the drivers swerved, which led to fatal head-on collisions. Unfortunately, speaking about the situation in Ukraine, American and Russian leaders are now playing such "nuclear" peepers, and the consequences can be equally fatal for both sides. The key difference is only that miscalculation will lead not to one or two deaths, but to millions of victims.
Russian officials have repeatedly sent Washington a signal that, although the Kremlin currently has no plans to use even small nuclear charges in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's government reserves the right to use them in case of a threat to Russia's independence or territorial integrity. Putin has repeatedly pointed out that the nuclear option remains in force if it comes to the need to respond to such "existential threats." Most recently, on September 21, he said: "The country also has various means of destruction, and in some components more modern than those of NATO countries, and when the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and Russians." He stressed that his warning "was not a bluff."
The Joe Biden administration should take these signals very seriously. But instead of abandoning its policy of sending increasingly powerful weapons to Ukraine, Washington is doubling down on this approach, despite Moscow's growing anger. Even worse, representatives of the Washington administration reportedly sent "unspoken" warnings to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would lead to "serious consequences", referring to the NATO military response. Thus, conditions have now been created for a real game of "nuclear" peepers.
One could count on Biden's political team and its supporters in the American foreign policy community to take Moscow's latest warnings quite seriously and begin to pursue a more cautious and prudent policy. But among these people there are also many who rejected or even snorted contemptuously at Putin's repeated statements, which have been heard since at least 2008 and clearly indicated that attempts to make Ukraine a member of NATO or even an informal military asset of the alliance cross the "red line" and are unacceptable. The "hawks" in the United States and Europe were surprisingly firmly convinced that Putin was bluffing. The beginning of the Russian military special operation in Ukraine in February of this year convincingly demonstrated that this is not the case.
One part of Washington's "hawks" still insists that Moscow is bluffing when it warns that it will consider using nuclear weapons if the Western threat to Russia becomes serious enough. Such people, apparently, have learned nothing from their previous miscalculation. Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, argues that Putin's warnings about using nuclear weapons in response to increased Western military aid to Kiev should be ignored. "The threat of escalation is empty talk," McFaul confidently declares. "Putin is bluffing." Other "hawks" urge the Biden administration not to succumb to Russia's "nuclear blackmail". They don't seem to be paying attention to the likely detrimental consequences if their predictions turn out to be wrong.
A rival faction of American politicians is somewhat more serious about the possibility of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, but their proposed "solution" is also terrifying. Max Booth (American military historian of Russian origin, leading researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, member of the advisory group of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces. — Approx. InoSMI.) argues that President Biden should prevent such actions by Russia, stressing that, although in the current circumstances the United States will not fight Russia directly, but all these "taboos" will be lifted if Putin uses nuclear weapons. Even without resorting to its own nuclear weapons, NATO will then have to deliver a crushing air strike on the Russian Armed Forces, quickly sink the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and destroy most of the Russian army in and around Ukraine. This, Bout believes, would shake Putin's regime to its foundations. In his opinion, we cannot stop the Russian president from reckless escalation, but we need to convince him that its price will be too high. Of course, we must not allow his threats to prevent us from providing Ukraine with all the weapons it needs to win.
Booth, apparently, assumes that the Russian bear will simply "dodge" such a confrontation and will begin to lick its wounds. Even for a fan of US military might and its indiscriminate, arbitrary use, Booth's proposal is extremely arrogant and irresponsible. He does not even seem to consider the possibility that Russia will escalate the confrontation instead of "giveaways". And in this case, escalation would mean an outright nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
The Biden administration is trying to somehow "cross" these two positions taken by its "hawkish" allies in the foreign policy sphere. U.S. officials say Russia's use of nuclear weapons is "unlikely," but acknowledge that the threat of such a scenario has "increased" in recent weeks.
Some Russian leaders, unfortunately, seem as arrogant as their American counterparts and believe that Moscow's use of nuclear weapons will not provoke a NATO attack. Putin's trusted ally Dmitry Medvedev expressed this position in a statement on September 27. "Let's imagine that Russia is forced to use the most formidable weapon against the Ukrainian regime, which has committed a large-scale act of aggression, which is dangerous for the very existence of our state. I believe that NATO will not directly interfere in the conflict even in this scenario," Medvedev said. He added that the security of Washington, London and Brussels "is much more important for NATO than the fate of the useless dying Ukraine."
In such a situation, a picture literally rises before my eyes, in which two cars are rushing furiously towards each other, and both drivers are sure that their opponent will turn away at the last moment. The American people are now at greater risk of nuclear war than at any time since the Caribbean crisis. Then Moscow retreated from the impending clash, sagaciously realizing that Washington was really determined not to allow the deployment of offensive missiles on America's doorstep. The Kremlin has wisely concluded that the United States will not give up even on nuclear confrontation, but will go to war to prevent such a threat to its vital interests.
This time, it is Washington that is the side that must step back from the escalating confrontation before it is too late. As I have already written in other articles, Russian leaders consider Ukraine a vital interest from the point of view of ensuring Russia's security. The Kremlin will do everything necessary to prevent its military defeat and avoid the appearance of Western troops and missiles on its border with Ukraine, possibly including even the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
In short, Russia is now unlikely to be the driver who swerves aside in the current "nuclear" peepers. And if the United States does not do this either — even at the cost of being called a "weak chicken" later - then the result promises to be a head—on collision and a catastrophe for Russia, the United States and the whole world.
Author: Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and editor of The American Conservative magazine. He is the author of 12 books and more than 1100 articles on international relations.
