Have we been saying “Never Again” for the past 80 years while really meaning “Okay, just this one more time and then we really mean it, seriously!”?
We are not intervening to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion because we fear it might spark a nuclear war. Yes, obviously we should pause for thought because this is “a big deal”. But what if Putin is bent on putting the old Soviet Union back together and he targets Estonia next? Estonia is a part of NATO and we are obligated to act.
If Putin does attack a NATO country next, how has the argument for not acting changed? It hasn’t. The argument against fulfilling our treaty obligations to Estonia is precisely the same as the one preventing us from fulfilling a moral obligation towards Ukraine: Putin may press the nuclear button.
The liberal commentariat is atwittering about the ‘madness’ of the suggestion of setting up a NATO-enforced “no fly zone” to frustrate Russia’s advance on Kiev. Certainly, if we start a no fly zone we will end up on a track which may well result in nuclear war. But what is the alternative?
The alternative is that because of the fear of nuclear war, we – the Democratic Free World – just let any rogue state with a nuclear bomb, or friends with a nuclear bomb, get away with anything they want to do forever… because the alternative may be nuclear war. Far from nuclear weapons being a deterrent, they are now a spectre to which we are held hostage by wannabe Hitlers like Putin. At what point do we decide we’d rather die with our boots on than bow and scrape to maniacal despots?
We’ve already indicated that we are willing to sacrifice an entire country to the rolling tanks of a fascist “to avert nuclear war”. What will he demand next? What if Putin says we must stop supplying Ukraine with weapons “or face nuclear war”? What if he says we must end sanctions, unfreeze assets and lift embargoes “or face nuclear war”? What if he demands former Eastern Block states are expelled from NATO “or face nuclear war”?
Is there a point at which we say “Well, we’ll risk it then”?
And isn’t it better to call him out sooner rather than later? If he’s willing to threaten us with the literal ‘nuclear option’ right at the get-go, then it is very likely that he will use them in the end. Where that point comes is less clear, but it will come: when he suffers severe setbacks, when his regime is about to fall, when he is in his bunker. If Hitler had created ‘the bomb’ before the Allies, would he have used it instead of shooting himself in the head? In our hearts, we know the answer.
If somebody is prepared to threaten nuclear weapons in order to protect their war of aggression, then we should proceed on the basis that they will continue to do so and will ultimately use them. And if they are prepared to use them, shouldn’t we begin to contemplate using them ourselves, or be in thrall to our own fear and held hostage to it by bullies?
Bullies work on the basis that the average, sensible, person is afraid to fight. We know the consequences of fighting and most of us have developed strategies to avoid fighting at all costs. We do not want to have black eyes and chipped teeth and bruised knuckles. We fear pain. We fear the shame and humiliation of being hit, or being seen to be brawling. We are experts at backing down, apologising, genuflecting before thuggery with all the verbal dexterity and submissive body language we can muster: just don’t hit us! Bullies sense this and this is how they bully. We might escape the attentions of a Friday night beer-soaked street fighter, but on a global scale, this is as unconscionable as it is catastrophic.
We think we are avoiding nuclear war by letting dictators do whatever they like. But they only restrain themselves as long as we let them do it, and as long as they are winning. What is to say they won’t use a nuclear bomb when they suffer severe setbacks?
And what is the point of “nuclear deterrence” if the only ones it deters from action is us, the good people?
UPDATE: Belarus – which until today was posing has as the peace-broker – has entered the war on Russia’s side. So, it seems it is fine for other dictatorships to come to Russia’s aid, but because Putin has threatened nuclear war, not for democracies to come to the aid of other democracies. What trajectory is this setting the world on?
