"It’s an existential conflict only in the mind of Vladimir Putin."
It's an existential threat to Vladimir Putin. That said, it's crystal clear to me that the threat of using the bomb simply doesn't mean much - the Soviets would have done all kinds of signalling like putting subs to sea, raising the alert status, dispersing mobile ICBM launchers from military bases and so on. He's doing none of that so there's no hair-trigger response on the table. It looks and smells like a propaganda production for the TV.
As for tactical use - he doesn't have ammo and equipment for his mobilised draftees, much less NBC protection gear, so using pony nukes doesn't offer much in the way of military advantage, and there are enormous battlefield drawbacks to using it. When the Germans first used chlorine gas in 1916 it gave them a mild and temporary advantage. After awhile everyone was using gas, and it offered no advantage to anybody but it made battlefield conditions much more arduous for soldiers.
That said, the desired effect of using nuclear threats is occurring when we have all these dumb bunnies offering to sacrifice the Ukrainians - that's what he was looking for. It doesn't help on the battlefield, but his main play here is to try and get the West/NATO/everybody to relent and let him have his prize that he cannot win on the battlefield.
For my money, that puts us in a different existential crisis: are we going to validate this kind of crap by sacrificing the Ukrainians, and if so, how are we going to handle the mass outbreak of Sudentenlands as everybody rat bastard leader decides to try and seize some territories? That leads directly to hot World War III. (It's funny that the War on Terror produced constant analogies to 1938 and Munich by pundits that didn't apply because this is pretty definitely exactly analogous to 1938 and Munich. Kinda wish all those folks had not massively overused the analogy.) (Putin is Putin, though, not Hitler.)
"That is an important fact, but if Russia’s selectorate sees a way out of this conflict without the use of nuclear weapons, that makes it that much harder for Putin to escalate."
... my point would be that he isn't escalating. He's spewing a bunch of crap. Deterrence is working great - if he could get his way by amping the alert levels and the like, he would totally do that... and he isn't. It's a dual-level approach - for propaganda purposes, he's all sturm und drang, and for actual purposes of fighting a nuclear war, he's all nudge nudge wink wink to the US, et al.
"If the message is, “We oppose Russia in Ukraine; we do not oppose Russia’s existence,” it takes the sting out of Putin’s hyperbole.""
'The United States has never had any interest in destroying Russia, however, there are no doubt some people in the world who would love to destroy Russia, and Putin is doing a damn fine job of implementing their desires.'
"But speeches by Western leaders articulating Russia’s pathway back to a pre-2022 existence (and not saying that the goal of the war is to weaken Russia) seem are an intrinsically good idea."
I think the problem with this is two-fold:
1) It's not true that the goal isn't to weaken Russia, nor is it a believable lie
2) There isn't a path back to a pre-2022 existence
On (1) it's quite transparent that, especially as the war goes on and expands people and nations very much do wish for the end of Russia, at least as a state capable of threatening others.
On (2) the obvious problem is that Europe is not going to go back to merrily buying his natural gas (even if/when the pipelines are repaired) and any attempt to promise such would be insanely negligent. Sanctions may be eased and that is presumably part of whatever negotiations may occur, but the pre-war state of Russia as Europe's gasman is probably irreparably damaged (and should be).
But this is not the point of this excellent article.
Too much rhetoric about Putin's regime being criminal and needing to be punished is, if morally justified, not helpful diplomatically. That's the reason why I find the ban on tourist visa for Russians a really unproductive idea. It strenghthens P.s domestic narrative of Western russiophobia. Western politicians need to stress that it was never their intention to destroy Russia and it won't be in the future.
Suppose Putin were to say that he did not want to attack the United States. If that statement would reassure you, were you also reassured by his statement eight months ago that he was not going to attack Ukraine? If it does not reassure you, why would you expect him to be reassured by a statement that the United States does not want to destroy him?
Would you be reassured if Walter White said he didn’t want to have you killed? That is a pretty close analogy, after all.
It is simply not realistic to expect Putin to believe a statement that we will not attack him. It is absurd to expect him to believe a statement that we do not despise him and the last eight months can be made to unhappen.
He can be persuaded that we are too scared to attack him. For example, by refusing to give Ukraine long range weapons and insisting it does not fire any weapons we do give it into Russia.
And he clearly believes these demonstrations of fear, because he has stripped the defences of St Petersburg to reinforce the armies in Ukraine. We don’t need to tell him we are cowards – he already knows.
He is a coward, too. If he were not, he would not still be hiding from COVID years after a vaccine was available, along with several treatments. Just as well. The last thing we want is an adversary with courage and a nuclear arsenal.
Hear, hear! Generally I think that Western statecraft has been pretty good in this war. (Putin's statecraft has been even more inept than his military's performance). But I think Western leaders have made a mistake not repeatedly saying that they only want Russia to return to it's borders and then the door is open to mutually beneficial trade and diplomacy.
Your essay makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose Putin, understandably paranoid, would interpret such words as a US pitch to the elite that "get rid of Putin and your troubles are over."
Sure, say that, and reduce the likelihood of Russia using nukes, and Putin remains president.
That’s the message, but the real objective should be to remove Putin and breakup the country.
Otherwise Russia will regroup, plan and come again. Until this huge country is broken up into smaller states, each ruled by the diverse range of ethnic groups within, it will come again with war.
Precisely what Biden should say again & again. Yet I wonder whether he & NATO don't want to see Putin gone & also whether the war can end without either Ukraine losing or Putin leaving.
I heartily agree with with you David, that the war won't end without either Ukraine losing or the Russians leaving, but I recon NATO and Biden would be quite happen to see Putin leaving. While the next ruler might be a nationalist/imperialist he (all the likely replacements are men) may well be rational and wouldn't have his ego invested in the war. He may well be prepared to cut his potential losses and withdraw. The prospects of selling a reduced amoutn of gas to Germany alone would make it worthwhile and a rational leader would see Russia is bleeding to no gain in Ukraine.
"It’s an existential conflict only in the mind of Vladimir Putin."
It's an existential threat to Vladimir Putin. That said, it's crystal clear to me that the threat of using the bomb simply doesn't mean much - the Soviets would have done all kinds of signalling like putting subs to sea, raising the alert status, dispersing mobile ICBM launchers from military bases and so on. He's doing none of that so there's no hair-trigger response on the table. It looks and smells like a propaganda production for the TV.
As for tactical use - he doesn't have ammo and equipment for his mobilised draftees, much less NBC protection gear, so using pony nukes doesn't offer much in the way of military advantage, and there are enormous battlefield drawbacks to using it. When the Germans first used chlorine gas in 1916 it gave them a mild and temporary advantage. After awhile everyone was using gas, and it offered no advantage to anybody but it made battlefield conditions much more arduous for soldiers.
That said, the desired effect of using nuclear threats is occurring when we have all these dumb bunnies offering to sacrifice the Ukrainians - that's what he was looking for. It doesn't help on the battlefield, but his main play here is to try and get the West/NATO/everybody to relent and let him have his prize that he cannot win on the battlefield.
For my money, that puts us in a different existential crisis: are we going to validate this kind of crap by sacrificing the Ukrainians, and if so, how are we going to handle the mass outbreak of Sudentenlands as everybody rat bastard leader decides to try and seize some territories? That leads directly to hot World War III. (It's funny that the War on Terror produced constant analogies to 1938 and Munich by pundits that didn't apply because this is pretty definitely exactly analogous to 1938 and Munich. Kinda wish all those folks had not massively overused the analogy.) (Putin is Putin, though, not Hitler.)
"That is an important fact, but if Russia’s selectorate sees a way out of this conflict without the use of nuclear weapons, that makes it that much harder for Putin to escalate."
... my point would be that he isn't escalating. He's spewing a bunch of crap. Deterrence is working great - if he could get his way by amping the alert levels and the like, he would totally do that... and he isn't. It's a dual-level approach - for propaganda purposes, he's all sturm und drang, and for actual purposes of fighting a nuclear war, he's all nudge nudge wink wink to the US, et al.
"If the message is, “We oppose Russia in Ukraine; we do not oppose Russia’s existence,” it takes the sting out of Putin’s hyperbole.""
'The United States has never had any interest in destroying Russia, however, there are no doubt some people in the world who would love to destroy Russia, and Putin is doing a damn fine job of implementing their desires.'
elm
*still* nothing to do here
The short form of Vladimir is not Vlad but Vavo. Vlad is short for Vladislav. Disappointing start to the article.
The short form of Vladimir is not Vavo, but Vova. Disappointing start of your short commment.
Liberal/Progressive think speek. Anything else is banned !
"But speeches by Western leaders articulating Russia’s pathway back to a pre-2022 existence (and not saying that the goal of the war is to weaken Russia) seem are an intrinsically good idea."
I think the problem with this is two-fold:
1) It's not true that the goal isn't to weaken Russia, nor is it a believable lie
2) There isn't a path back to a pre-2022 existence
On (1) it's quite transparent that, especially as the war goes on and expands people and nations very much do wish for the end of Russia, at least as a state capable of threatening others.
On (2) the obvious problem is that Europe is not going to go back to merrily buying his natural gas (even if/when the pipelines are repaired) and any attempt to promise such would be insanely negligent. Sanctions may be eased and that is presumably part of whatever negotiations may occur, but the pre-war state of Russia as Europe's gasman is probably irreparably damaged (and should be).
To Roman Haller: in fact it's Vova.
But this is not the point of this excellent article.
Too much rhetoric about Putin's regime being criminal and needing to be punished is, if morally justified, not helpful diplomatically. That's the reason why I find the ban on tourist visa for Russians a really unproductive idea. It strenghthens P.s domestic narrative of Western russiophobia. Western politicians need to stress that it was never their intention to destroy Russia and it won't be in the future.
Suppose Putin were to say that he did not want to attack the United States. If that statement would reassure you, were you also reassured by his statement eight months ago that he was not going to attack Ukraine? If it does not reassure you, why would you expect him to be reassured by a statement that the United States does not want to destroy him?
Would you be reassured if Walter White said he didn’t want to have you killed? That is a pretty close analogy, after all.
It is simply not realistic to expect Putin to believe a statement that we will not attack him. It is absurd to expect him to believe a statement that we do not despise him and the last eight months can be made to unhappen.
He can be persuaded that we are too scared to attack him. For example, by refusing to give Ukraine long range weapons and insisting it does not fire any weapons we do give it into Russia.
And he clearly believes these demonstrations of fear, because he has stripped the defences of St Petersburg to reinforce the armies in Ukraine. We don’t need to tell him we are cowards – he already knows.
He is a coward, too. If he were not, he would not still be hiding from COVID years after a vaccine was available, along with several treatments. Just as well. The last thing we want is an adversary with courage and a nuclear arsenal.
Hear, hear! Generally I think that Western statecraft has been pretty good in this war. (Putin's statecraft has been even more inept than his military's performance). But I think Western leaders have made a mistake not repeatedly saying that they only want Russia to return to it's borders and then the door is open to mutually beneficial trade and diplomacy.
Russians need to understand that they are not fighting NATO and NATO doesn’t want to invade Russia, doesn’t want Russia.
Your essay makes perfect sense to me, but I suppose Putin, understandably paranoid, would interpret such words as a US pitch to the elite that "get rid of Putin and your troubles are over."
Sure, say that, and reduce the likelihood of Russia using nukes, and Putin remains president.
That’s the message, but the real objective should be to remove Putin and breakup the country.
Otherwise Russia will regroup, plan and come again. Until this huge country is broken up into smaller states, each ruled by the diverse range of ethnic groups within, it will come again with war.
Well argued and sensible. Many thanks.
Precisely what Biden should say again & again. Yet I wonder whether he & NATO don't want to see Putin gone & also whether the war can end without either Ukraine losing or Putin leaving.
I heartily agree with with you David, that the war won't end without either Ukraine losing or the Russians leaving, but I recon NATO and Biden would be quite happen to see Putin leaving. While the next ruler might be a nationalist/imperialist he (all the likely replacements are men) may well be rational and wouldn't have his ego invested in the war. He may well be prepared to cut his potential losses and withdraw. The prospects of selling a reduced amoutn of gas to Germany alone would make it worthwhile and a rational leader would see Russia is bleeding to no gain in Ukraine.