For decades, the U.S. and Russia avoided direct confrontations that could escalate to nuclear war. Leaders on both sides were cautious.
Putin may be cut from different cloth. Even before he invaded Ukraine, Biden declared sending U.S. troops was off the table, and Russia’s nukes was why, but Putin (perhaps emboldened by that) rattled the nuclear saber anyway. A Georgetown expert thinks he’s just using that as “a shield [to] pursue conventional aggression,” but there’s no way to be sure.
A popular theme in the West is that “neither the US nor Russia can hope to win a nuclear war. …. The only way to win is not to play.” This “appears to be [why] the Biden administration has been so adamant on avoiding any kind of involvement in Ukraine,” Vox says (read article here). But does Putin think that way?
The U.S. also has other reasons for non-intervention, foremost that the U.S. has no vital interests at stake. For Putin, the reverse is true; Ukraine borders Russia. And for him, a “significant US or NATO intervention [there] would, by sheer fact of geography, pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian homeland. Were it to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor, Russia could very conceivably use its nuclear arsenal against its NATO enemies.”
So far, Russia is using conventional weapons against Ukraine, a non-nuclear state (albeit one with a large army). Experts on nuclear strategy told Vox that absent “a shocking escalation, that isn’t likely to change.” A Harvard professor says, “I think there is virtually no chance nuclear weapons are going to be used in the Ukraine situation,” because given the U.S. and its NATO allies have made clear they won’t send troops to Ukraine, Putin has no reason to use them (read article here).
I’m also thinking if Russian forces defeat Ukraine’s army and overrun its territory, as is expected, and the conflict then becomes a guerilla war, there won’t be any suitable targets for nukes anyway. You don’t use nukes against small pockets of civilians fighting with AK-47s (photo below).
But these are logical reasons for Putin not to start a nuclear war, and are based on the assumption he’ll control his emotions and make rational decisions. That might not be an entirely safe assumption (see article here); and if Putin is unstable, that could be drastically magnified if Russia is losing, a lot of Russians are being killed, and he grows frustrated with the West supplying arms to the Ukrainian resistance. Also, while Putin is popular in Russia (for reasons why, go here), a disaster in Ukraine that threatens his grip on power could make him dangerous, especially if he feels cornered (see article here).
Which raises this question: Will the U.S. and its allies, at some point, back off from aiding the Ukrainians? And should we, if Putin escalates his threats? Polls suggest many Americans see Biden as weak, and want a stronger response (see story here), but what exactly, that doesn’t risk nuclear war?
Here’s something else to keep in mind. Biden is basing his decisions on U.S. intelligence, which — whatever its past failures — this time is spot-on (see article here): It has accurately Putin’s every move, right down to timing. As president, Biden has information we don’t and if he sees a nuclear war danger, it’s very likely real.
