Benjamin Giltner
As the war in Ukraine continues into its third year of fighting, all parties appear more willing to escalate than to bring it to an end. In his annual “State of the Nation” address, President Vladimir Putin warned NATO nations that they “must, in the end, understand all this truly threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization,” if they continue to arm Ukraine and consider sending troops. Even as far back as June 2022, Putin warned U.S. officials against sending long-range missiles to Ukraine, stating, “We will strike at those targets which we have not yet been hitting.”
However, American policymakers and analysts seem to think that Putin won’t put his money where his mouth is when it comes to escalation. Adam Kinzinger and Ben Hodges assured readers that Putin is bluffing with his threats of nuclear escalation. NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, dismissed the likelihood of Western aid to Ukraine leading to Russian retaliation. The Biden administration seems to agree, having recently allowed Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike inside Russian territory—a red line the administration previously refused to cross.
In this view, escalation is calculable, and countries tend to bluff with their red lines. This assumption is false. As the famed military and nuclear strategist Bernard Brodie explained, countries usually do not usually bluff when they make threats. In fact, there are multiple cases throughout history that show how this misunderstanding of escalation has led to disastrous results.
No comments:
Post a Comment