Nato cannot afford to dismiss Putin’s nuclear threats as a bluff
Vladimir Putin has always taken actions that other European leaders would have regarded as unthinkable. He invaded Georgia and fomented separatist movements in neighbouring countries. He ordered a covert invasion and annexation of the Crimea, and the proxy invasion of the eastern Donbas. Then came a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, intending to turn it into, at best, a slave state of Russia.
If he believes Russian interests are threatened and judges he can get away with it, Putin will act with utter ruthlessness: whether that’s to kill a journalist, poison a dissident, imprison an opponent, or invade a country. So far, the only serious resistance has come from the Ukrainians. That’s what makes it all so remarkable. They’ve humiliated the Russian forces that poured across the border expecting a swift victory, only to find themselves locked in a modern-day David and Goliath battle. And because he’s never yet been thwarted, Putin must now be considering every possible move to crush this upstart nation – these Nazis and criminals, as he calls them.
Of course, while the Ukrainians are fighting alone, they’re not unaided. More weaponry is now being supplied, in ever-greater volumes, to facilitate a victory that once felt inconceivable but now seems tantalisingly possible. Unless, of course, the Russians “escalate to de-escalate”, as their military doctrine provides: namely, using weaponry their foe lacks to pulverise Ukraine into submission.
The main reason Putin thought he could easily overcome Ukraine was because it lacked the protection of Nato membership and its Chapter Five guarantee that an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. Equally likely, Nato declined Ukraine membership, knowing Putin’s designs, and fearing being drawn into war with Russia. But, like America before Pearl Harbour, war is now an inescapable reality. Nato – Britain, especially – is offering all the help it can, short of giving battle itself. Deep down, every Western leader knows the Ukrainians are fighting for the freedom of all. A Russian win would confirm the cynical view that that might makes right. It would ring down a new iron curtain in Europe, and embolden Moscow’s “no limits” partner in Beijing. A Ukrainian win would echo down the ages; proof that courage and resolve can overcome even the most daunting odds.
As long as it’s tank vs tank, gun vs gun, and soldier vs soldier, higher morale, better generalship and conviction of right can succeed against overwhelming numbers. But no one can stand against doomsday weapons. And Putin fears that he can’t afford to lose. That’s why he has warned of “consequences … such as you have never seen in your history”. Last week, Russian propagandists threatened to annihilate the UK: “one Sarmat missile will be enough to sink it once and for all”. History suggests it would be a mistake to dismiss this as a bluff.
How can the nuclear genie be kept in the bottle in a fight against a nuclear armed state? The best way to ensure such weapons are not used is to take away any notion that they might break a stalemate to win the war. Right now, Nato leaders will be thinking this through, imagining the messages that might deter a Russian escalation but without risking World War Three.
One possibility might be to make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons would guarantee Ukraine’s immediate Nato accession. Though no threat of nuclear retaliation or of an attack on Russia itself, this would mean Ukraine would no longer fight alone and make the current battlefield impasse the best outcome Russia could hope for.
The words or silences, the actions or inactions of our leaders will decide the kind of world we live in: one that remains safe for democracy; or one where nuclear-armed dictators can inflict their will. There could hardly be more fraught considerations but they are unavoidable now that history has well and truly re-started in Europe.
War is an inescapable reality; our leaders will need to decide the kind of world we live in