Recently, 141 nations condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations. Only five nations rejected this condemnation. And those nations reflect the anti-democratic comrades of Russia’s dictator. Most of the world, then, has expressed its displeasure with President Putin. As the world’s press reports on the atrocities committed by his army, we all feel the anguish of Ukrainians as their homes are destroyed and their families are ravaged by indiscriminate bombing and artillery barrages. The human tragedy inflicted by Putin’s unprovoked war must touch all who witness it—which is every human being with a cell phone or TV monitor. As fellow humans, we cringe at the site of women and children escaping from bombed-out communities while their husbands/fathers/brothers enlist in a besieged army to expel invaders from their country. We are all sickened by the carnage and by the unspeakable arrogance of this dictator who initiated this murderous onslaught. And we feel connected with the Ukrainians’ cause as they fight to protect their homes and families and preserve their freedom as an independent democracy. Like them, we are mad!
But MAD is also an acronym for “mutually assured destruction.” And MAD should not be treated lightly or as a bargaining chip in a high stakes game of conquest. Putin has drawn the world into his game of nuclear poker. While he threatens Europe with short range nuclear missiles, he hopes to keep America out of his game plan because of MAD. His war strategy then is based on what he learned as a KGB operative: begin a war you intend to win at all costs; and up the ante if falling behind planned objectives or losing. He premised his Ukrainian game plan early: first, he staged nuclear war exercises with his short-range weapons to remind Europe of its vulnerability; second, he showed the nuclear MAD card to neutralize any American threat. His was and is a very high stakes game with MAD as his ace in the hole. If he can neutralize Europe/NATO with his short-range missiles and America with MAD, he hoped to assure the success of his Ukrainian invasion without engaging either NATO or an American intervention. He then could overwhelm Ukrainians’ will to fight with an indiscriminate assault of bombs, artillery, and cruise missiles aimed at civilians, their homes, and their supportive infrastructure. His brutal game plan, then, includes war crimes against non-combatants while a far superior antagonists such as NATO and the US remain neutralized by a very high stakes game of nuclear brinkmanship. We are all captive in his MAD world!
The problem with Putin’s game plan is the same with any high stakes’ gambler. He must belief he cannot lose. So how do we convince Putin that he can and will lose? Must we play his game? So far, President Biden has refused to do so. He has changed the nature of the game. While Putin threatens with his nuclear arsenal, our President has countered by engineering a Russian financial meltdown. Unlike JFK, President Biden has not readied America’s nuclear warheads. Nor has he changed NATO’s readiness to deploy its short-range nuclear weapons. (I suspect they are always ready, but in a defensive posture.) Instead, the American President has raised the stakes for Putin by putting Russia’s economy in jeopardy. And Putin has responded by engaging in a massive public relations campaign to convince Russians that Ukraine is being liberated by Putin’s peacekeeping force from a Nazis genocide campaign and that America is the Great Satan that is waging a criminal financial war against the Russian people. Since he has squashed all fair and honest journalistic outlets within Russia, he may hope to limit the flow of honest reporting. But that hope is not very realistic given the 21st century plethora of information outlets. There have been protests throughout Russia, suggesting the success of Putin’s propaganda campaign may be at risk. But, while Russia suffers a slow financial meltdown, Ukraine is being burnt to the ground, and the rest of the world remains frozen in a state of persistent indecision and unrelenting remorse. While Ukrainians fight and die, we are stuck in this MAD world, frozen by a nuclear standoff, and mad as hell about our dithering.
It seems likely that Putin will resort to more violent or despicable methods. Putin will turn to his cyber war weapons. Instead of a nuclear war, the world may find itself reeling from cyber-attacks on financial institutions and infrastructure. Ironically, he may pretend to sanction world leaders arrayed against him—though he lacks the power to do so. Putin will huff and puff and blow the house down before acceding to defeat. He is that cagey wolf at the door. But on the other side of that door is the inspiring leadership of Ukraine’s President Zelensky and the wily experience of President Biden on the world stage. Ukraine may yet outlast its invading army and win a Pyrrhic victory. And the West may indeed succeed in reducing Russia to a third world economy, incapable of supporting any future war effort. That history is yet to be written and subject to the whims of fate. But how can the free world secure that fate, rather than merely witness what could become the beginning of its demise?
What if NATO declared a humanitarian safe zone within Ukraine for escaping refugees? So far, all “safe corridors” for refugees have not proven safe from Russian artillery. But what if NATO guaranteed the safety of such an escape route with the full force of its military? Well, if Russia attacked refugees within this safe zone, NATO could, with justification, proceed to demolish Russian weapons depots and artillery positions located in Russia—effectively cutting its military off from all support required not only to attack safe corridors but also to continue its brutal bombardment of Ukrainian cities. Russian soldiers would then be at the mercy of enraged Ukrainian fighters defending their country of invaders. The war could end within a few weeks or, at worse, months. And the Putin military foundation he has built over several decades could end with a severe diminution of its capability. The dilemma for Putin would then be to cease all offensive operations or escalate his attack. In other words, he could seek a diplomatic armistice to save his remaining force from an angry Ukrainian army without the cover of artillery or provision of resupply. Or he could release his tactical nuclear weapons against Europe while attempting to hold America at bay with MAD. He could either resign himself to an armistice as would any sane leader or commit to a full scorched-earth path as would a maniacal fanatic. So, who has Putin proved himself to be over the past two decades—a thoughtful Russian patriot or a KGB fanatic? What assurance, if any, can there be in any answer to this question? And what might be the consequences of that answer? The acronym MAD seems to imply a certain level of insanity or fanaticism. Do we then have to be resigned to World War III, perhaps even a nuclear holocaust?
I must confess my limitations here. Though a war veteran who worked in the Signal Corp’s operations and intelligence (S2/S3), I have no expertise here in weighing the alternatives before our generals and military advisors. They might find it tempting to defeat a frequent antagonist and to decimate its military for a decade or more. But who would or could risk a nuclear war—limited or not? In our system of government, this type of decision is not before the military, but before the people’s representatives. Congress declares war, not the generals and not even the President. Clearly, President Biden understands his limitations here and is representing our Constitution and our treaty obligations, as approved by a duly elected Congress. ¹ The real danger here is that Putin might take an offensive action that our President would be required to respond in kind as our Commander-in-Chief who takes an oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (ref. Article II, Section 1).
This is a moment in history unlike any other. Not even the Cuban missile crisis (referenced in my previous blog), is analogous to this confrontation. President Khrushchev did propose a reasonable compromise that addressed each sides’ nuclear intimidation in both Cuba and Turkey. But does President Putin seem reasonable? Has he ever backed out of a military confrontation he initiated? Has he ever weighed the costs on the Russian people for the military invasions he orchestrated in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, the eastern provinces of Ukraine, or his current assault on Ukraine? Though Khrushchev was no less committed to Russian sovereignty and the exercise of its power, he was as much a realist as a Russian patriot. Unlike Putin, he was not a fanatic. He, like many Russian Presidents who followed him, signed various nuclear limitation pacts and various force coordination agreements designed to prevent any miscalculation in armed conflicts. Khrushchev threatened America because nuclear missiles in Turkey presented a threat to Russia. Putin recently signed a short range missile deployment pact with NATO, a military defensive organization. It exists because of its fear of the “Russian Bear.” Putin, however, knows no fear of a first strike attack from NATO’s member states. Instead, only Ukraine’s democracy threatens him. And, obviously, that threat is not against Russia. No, Putin feels personally threatened by the European Union’s democratic states and, most especially, by a democratic border state so closely related to Russia and its history. For democracy threatens his hold onto absolute power—that is, power over all laws, courts, his military, and all government administrative functions. Therefore, he feels at liberty to invade Ukraine because he can do so without fear of reprisal from a nuclear armed–but defensive—organization of free states.
The hubris in Putin’s unprovoked invasion of a free democratic state is his defanging of America with MAD. He is a dictator who forces his will on other free states, including both Europe and America, by threatening nuclear Armageddon. When has the quest for absolute power ever been enforced by nuclear annihilation? Again, this is a moment in history unlike any other. And it is truly maddening!
In recent blogs, I’ve suggested that Putin is not bluffing, for he is convinced he has a winning hand. The western democracies, he assumes, could never convince their citizens that risking a nuclear holocaust was for their benefit. Conversely, the example of freedom loving Ukrainians has reminded the world’s democracies of the stakes. Remember, the 20th century world wars were not started by freedom-loving dictator/tyrants. Their bluster and demagoguery were not born out of a love for freedom, but out of a lust for power. Also, they, like all bullies, did not expect their bluff to be called. But the Allies’ fist in the face of their aggression was not equivalent to a nuclear war. What if, in our current crisis, NATO declared and vowed to enforce a humanitarian armistice to render aid to the victims of war crimes? Since all of Ukraine has suffered from these crimes, NATO calls for a halt to all offensive military actions. Further, it demands a complete and total withdrawal of the Russian military aggressors to positions beyond the pre-invasion borders of the two countries within a mutually agreed period. The conditions for this withdrawal will include mutual recognition of Ukraine’s status as a provisional member of NATO and the elimination of all sanctions against the Russian Federation over a negotiated timeframe. Further, NATO agrees to assure the safety of all Russian military personnel during their withdrawal. In other words, all parties must agree to end all hostilities and return to peaceful relations, a pax priusquam. Otherwise, NATO will enforce this pax priusquam with all powers available to it.
Why, you might ask, would Putin accept this complete capitulation of his imperialistic agenda? Well, I can think of at least two arguments that might sway him from his murderous intent. First, unless he accepts the terms of this pax priusquam, he risks losing his military to a far superior force and his Russian economy, to a devastating depression without any reprieve from international organizations. Second, unless he accepts these terms, he would risk losing whatever support his propaganda can muster/maintain from the Russian people. He must know that he cannot suppress the truth about his unprovoked war forever. The thousands of Russians already jailed for their protests of Putin’s unprovoked war are only going to be multiplied over time. And his plan for a quick war has been demolished by the fierce resistance of the Ukrainians.
Would Putin accept these terms? As a fanatic, he probably would not. But, as a survivor, he might. And, as a realist, he would have to recognize the possibility of retaining some measure of his pre-war status. The terms of this pax priusquam allow him to retain a large part of his military power, to regain world markets and restoration of the Russian economy, to restart his Don Quixote mission to wage unremitting opposition against the US, NATO and democracies everywhere, and to resume his czar-like control over the Russian Federation, at least until the next Russian election.
Just 20 minutes ago, I listened to President Zelensky’s address to the American Congress. It was a Cassandra-like forewarning of the free world’s impending failure to secure its future. Ukraine could be the first stone removed from the foundation of the European edifice of free democratic states. The EU itself should shudder at the prospect of Russian soldiers and mercenaries on its eastern border. Does anyone doubt that Putin would amass a large army at that border—on the graveyard of a free Ukraine—to bolster his alleged “defense” against the EU. He did no less when he surrounded Ukraine before initiating an unprovoked assault. He would and will do so again. President Zelensky is reminding America as the leader of the free world that it alone stands on the precipice where World Peace must stand or fall. America or, more specifically, Americans are once again being called to defend democracy and the union of free European states. I believe our President has risen to the task at hand. But we Americans must do more, not only to secure our democracy at home, but to defend it abroad as well. What is at stake, as President Zelensky reminds us, is world peace.
______________________________________________
¹ It is true that most of our international commitments are Presidential agreements that sometimes are not honored by subsequent Presidents—as happened in the Trump presidency. But America always acts in accordance with its treaty obligations, as required by our Constitution and the lawful action of a freely elected Congress.