Nato’s major dilemma as false move threatens apocalypse
A month after Russia invaded Ukraine, the biggest decision of our lifetimes could be looming, says political editor-at-large Martin Shipton
IT’S PROBABLY the greatest geopolitical dilemma since the Second World War: what should the West do if Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine?
There is no obviously right or wrong answer, but literally millions of lives could depend on the response.
We can no longer depend on the certainties that became apparent during the Cold War.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 proved that at a moment of high tension, neither the capitalist nor communist blocs were prepared to use nuclear weapons.
After the US threatened war unless Soviet missiles were withdrawn, a compromise was reached.
The missiles were removed from Cuba with a public announcement suggesting that the Soviets had backed down, but secretly the US had agreed to remove its own missiles from Turkey.
The belief in “mutually assured destruction” appeared to have provided a workable deterrent from using nuclear weapons.
As Dr Jenny Mathers, a senior lecturer in international politics at Aberystwyth University, put it: “Nobody believed that Brezhnev or other Soviet leaders in the 1970s and 1980s would be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
“Today, though, it’s much harder to predict what Putin would be prepared to do.”
At present, of course, speculation is focused on how Nato should respond if Russia deploys chemical weapons.
The speculation has arisen because Putin has been speaking of how Ukraine might be about to use chemical weapons itself – a sure sign, say “Putinologists”, that such is what he has in mind.
For Mick Antoniw, the Welsh Government minister whose family originates in Ukraine, the use of chemical weapons would represent the crossing of a line that would demand retaliation.
He said: “Nato couldn’t just sit back and let it happen.
“If Putin was allowed to get away with using chemical weapons, he would be emboldened and might be prepared to go further.
“I firmly believe that if Putin uses chemical weapons, Nato should introduce a ‘no fly’ zone across the skies of Ukraine.
“So far, the argument against a ‘no fly’ zone has been that imposing one would encourage Putin to go up a notch in his pursuit of war, but once he’s using chemical weapons he’s already done that.
“And it’s not as if he hasn’t done it before.”
Putin used chemical weapons in Syria as part of a military intervention in support of his ally President Assad.
Despite warning of reprisals if that happened, then-President Obama took no action, possibly emboldening Putin to use the same tactic in Ukraine.
Dr Mathers said: “What’s more than a little worrying is that we don’t feel we know any more what Putin would be prepared to do.
“He’s in a position now where his conventional forces have been shown not to be very effective when pursuing his military aims.
“The question then is what more Putin is prepared to do to get a compliant Ukraine to agree to his demands.
“Of course, it’s right to point out that the Ukrainians have been very good in getting across their message
of resistance, highlighting situations where they have had military success.
“We don’t tend to hear as much about other situations where Russia has been more successful.
“Nevertheless, it’s undoubtedly true that the war is dragging on a lot longer than Putin expected and that he’s possibly about to raise the stakes by using chemical weapons.
“I think there may be a difference between what Nato should do and what it would do.
“We’re focusing on chemical weapons, but of course looming in the background are nuclear weapons. We can’t be sure that he wouldn’t be prepared to use them.”
Dr Mathers said that while Russia had a huge population it could draw on to add to the number of troops in Ukraine, there were strong grounds to believe that morale was low.
Stories were also emerging that in addition to Russian troops being prepared to surrender, there had been situations where senior officers had been killed by their subordinates, who were not in favour of the war.
Even so, the ability of Russia to import more and more troops could mean that in the longer term, the momentum swung in the bigger country’s favour, as opposed to the present position, where the momentum seems to be with Ukraine.
Perhaps ominously, Dr Mathers referred to a paper she had written in 2010 when she quoted from speeches made by Putin in which he made repeated references to Russia’s nuclear capability.
“It may be that he’s thought in those terms for a long time,” she said. “But in addition he seems to have changed more recently into someone who could be more unstable.”
Dr Mathers was also unconvinced by the suggestion that Russian generals or politicians close to Putin might be prepared to remove him from office.
“It could happen, but he has surrounded himself with loyalists who individually supported the invasion of Ukraine. They all have blood on their hands.”
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that today’s Nato leaders – including President Biden – have no clear idea about how they would respond to the use of chemical weapons.
“Biden has said there would be a response, but he hasn’t said what the response would be.
“The intention is probably to keep Putin guessing, which may be no bad thing.
“But what if he goes ahead and uses chemical weapons?”
Experts are reluctant to give an unequivocal answer, which may or may not be a cause for worry. Most likely it is.
Few politicians are military strategists, and wouldn’t claim to be so.
Given the potential for Armageddon if the wrong call is made, it’s not surprising that they are mostly unwilling to commit to any action that could escalate the war, and instead focus on peace initiatives that are well-meaning but probably impractical.
Plaid Cymru’s international affairs spokesman, Hywel Williams MP, said for example: “With the threat of chemical weapons looming, the international community must be prepared to provide more support to Ukraine.
“Direct military engagement by Nato, on the ground or in the skies, could escalate the war to apocalyptic levels of destruction – but that should not mean that we should stand idly by.
“That’s why Plaid Cymru have called for the United Nations’ General Assembly to begin a peacekeeping operation, taking responsibility in accordance with the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution of 1950.
“By anchoring the peacekeeping operation not in Nato but the UN could allow us to break the current impasse, and by involving a large number of neutral, non-Nato countries from all continents that make up the UN’s 70,000-strong force, we would make it much more difficult for Putin to present this as a war with the West.”
For the moment, Putin’s inscrutability adds to a growing sense of foreboding.