One can only hope that by the time President Joe Biden departs office, there still exists an office to depart. This is not hyperbole or fear mongering. Biden’s decision to authorize the use of ATACMS missiles against Russia by Ukraine is startling and highly irresponsible. It also marks the latest escalation between NATO and Russia.
Biden initially shot down requests for the use of these missiles despite intense lobbying from Ukraine over fears such an action could spark a more dangerous and protracted conflict between the U.S. and Russia. Biden is reported to have told his staff that “we’re trying to avoid World War III.” Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that if NATO allowed Ukraine access to missiles capable of striking targets deep inside Russian territory, then it would “change…the very nature of the conflict” meaning that Putin would perceive such a policy reversal as a signal of direct participation by NATO.
Biden’s rationale for approving the use of ATACMS is the need to match Russia on the escalation ladder. Putin’s decisions can’t go unchecked. After news that 11,000 North Korean troops are now operating in the Kursk region of Russia and that Iran is contributing to Russia’s war effort by supplying ballistic missiles and other weaponry, Biden felt the U.S. had to respond in a significant manner, though his administration maintains that Ukranian operations with these weapons will “have a very specific and limited effect.”
It is the case that Russia and North Korea shifted toward a policy that was sure to cause further inflammation between NATO and Russia. I argue, however, that Biden’s decision to authorize the use of ATACMS by Ukraine to strike Russia deep within its territory is dangerous and needlessly provocative.
In response to the U.S., Moscow altered its nuclear doctrine and “formally lowered the threshold for Russia’s use of its nuclear weapons.” This doctrine enables Putin to retaliate with nuclear weapons against even conventional attacks on its territory. Does this mean Putin will respond with such an attack? Not quite. Though an attack with ATACMS could instigate a nuclear response from Moscow, the modified doctrine “is formulated broadly to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons and keep Putin’s options open.” This open-endedness, however, is what keeps us in the fog – and it is surely Russia’s attempt to assert further deterrence. The latter fact is why many in the West believe that Putin is simply bluffing.
However, nuclear weapons certainly do not seem out of the question for Putin and his braintrust: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “emphasized that the Ukrainian strike in Bryansk marked an escalation and urged the U.S. and other Western allies to study the modernized nuclear doctrine.” Lavrov claims that since Ukraine lacks the military capability to conduct attacks deep into Russia alone, “it will mean that they [ATACMS] are controlled by American military experts and we will view that as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia and respond accordingly.”
Counting on Putin’s bluff is not a safe option. Nor is it rational. It isn’t even in the best interest of the United States to be entangled in geopolitical strife in Eastern Europe. Ukraine is not going to defeat Russia and this war could be ended, indeed have been prevented, if the U.S. and NATO rolled back their policy of pulling Ukraine into NATO and instead declared neutrality.
This view is not a novel one. It is expressed most poignantly by scholar John Mearsheimer. He asserts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was rational since NATO provoked it, “viewing the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a bulwark on Russia’s border as an existential threat that could not be allowed to stand.” A worthy thought-experiment is to imagine what a U.S. response would be if China or Russia attempted to park military installations and nuclear weapons along the Rio Grande river. One need not imagine too hard, as the Cuban Missile Crisis represents how the U.S. feels about Russia getting too close. So why can’t Russia worry about NATO getting too close? Because the West said so and when things begin to go wrong, the West needs someone to blame and condemn; Putin is that someone.
Is Putin a dictator? Of course. However, his conduct abroad has little to do with whether he is a dictator. That is not how international politics works. Moral considerations fall behind strategic ones–ask Henry Kissinger–and as I have outlined, NATO’s attempt to inch closer to Russia’s border is not something Russia is willing to tolerate. So, when he responds, say, with North Korean troops in the Kursk region, the West is quick to point the finger. This is why Biden’s decision is so alarming. The U.S. provokes conflict, engages in the blame game when Russia invites troops from other countries and then proceeds to escalate to the extent that the other nation feels compelled to loosen the restraints on their nuclear doctrine. As an American, I want to protect American interests. It is my view that escalating further in Ukraine carries with it possible consequences capable of destroying world and, therefore, it is not in our best interest not to engage in such pointless escalation. As Mearsheimer also notes, it is far smarter to pivot and focus on the real challenge to American hegemony: China.
In closing, Biden’s continued escalation endangers all of us. It is true Russia and North Korea have also escalated the conflict further, however, NATO has been on a fool’s-errand to increase Western power in Eastern Europe and thus paved the path to the current war in Ukraine. As I explained, there is no imaginable scenario where the U.S. wouldn’t react the same as Russia if the roles were reversed. It is time that we acknowledge this in the West and attempt to work toward cooling the temperature and ensuring we don’t find ourselves in nuclear war, which is another way of saying the end of times. Hopefully this was Biden’s final bêtise.
