Putin’s Nuclear Bluffs: Unmasking Russia’s Hollow Threats

 

History has shown that each time the West provided advanced weaponry to Ukraine, Russia’s threats of nuclear retaliation proved to be hollow bluffs. The truth remains that the pattern of hollow threats from Russia, exemplified by Putin's nuclear saber-rattling, should embolden the West to strengthen its support for Ukraine.

In the complex web of international politics, the doctrine of "escalation aversion" appears to have gripped the Biden administration’s National Security Council. The fear that increased support for Ukraine might spark World War III has been a significant factor in shaping U.S. policy. However, historical precedents over the past two years show that these fears may be unfounded and that it is time to call Putin's bluff.

The recent decision by France and Germany to join the UK in allowing Ukraine to use supplied weapons in strikes on Russian soil marks a significant shift. Predictably, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of "serious consequences," invoking the specter of nuclear retaliation—a threat he has wielded repeatedly. But these threats, often hollow, should not dictate Western policy. A closer look at the recent history of U.S. and allied support for Ukraine demonstrates this point clearly.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022, the pattern has been clear: Ukraine requests advanced weaponry, the West initially hesitates, fearing escalation, then eventually relents, and no nuclear war occurs. This pattern began with Ukraine’s request for Javelins and Stingers, which, after initial reluctance, were provided and used effectively by Ukrainian forces.

Following the successful defense of Kyiv, Ukraine sought MiG-29s, which Poland was ready to supply in exchange for Western fighters. The Biden administration initially blocked this but later agreed, with no resultant nuclear conflict. Similarly, requests for F-16 fighter jets, Patriot missiles, HIMARS rocket launchers, Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, and ATACMS missiles followed the same trajectory—initial refusal, eventual provision, and no nuclear retaliation.

Each time, Russia threatened severe repercussions, yet each time, those threats proved to be bluffs. This sequence of events demonstrates a clear lesson: the fear of escalation has repeatedly been overstated. When Ukraine was provided with the requested weapons, it used them to effectively defend its territory and inflict significant damage on Russian forces without triggering a broader conflict.

Imagine if Ukraine had been equipped with all these weapons from the start of the conflict. After the 2022 counteroffensive, Russia was disorganized and struggling with recruitment. A fully equipped Ukraine might have delivered a decisive blow, potentially shortening the war and reducing the overall human and economic toll.

The Biden administration’s careful calibration of support has allowed for incremental increases in firepower without crossing perceived Russian "red lines." However, this approach has significant drawbacks. It allows Russia to adapt and escalate its own tactics, knowing that the West's response will be measured and cautious. This gradual escalation benefits Russia more than it does Ukraine.

As Ukraine continues to request permission to strike military targets inside Russia with American weapons, it is crucial to reassess the U.S. stance. Denying these requests prolongs the conflict and allows Russia to attack Ukrainian civilian and military targets with impunity. Granting these permissions could change the dynamics of the war, enabling Ukraine to hit critical Russian infrastructure and supply lines, thereby weakening Russia’s ability to wage war.

The historical context of nuclear threats during the Cold War provides valuable insights. Despite numerous nuclear threats from the Soviet Union, the U.S. did not let these deter its foreign policy objectives. Similarly, modern-day Russia's nuclear threats should not paralyze Western support for Ukraine.

The prohibition on Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil was understandable when Ukraine was defending Kyiv. However, as the conflict has evolved into an attritional war, this prohibition makes less sense. Russian forces can attack Ukrainian targets from their own territory and then retreat to safety, regroup, and launch further attacks. Allowing Ukraine to strike back across the border would disrupt this cycle, creating chaos and lowering Russian morale.

Escalation management remains essential, and support for Ukraine must come with oversight. However, the existential nature of Ukraine's fight warrants greater flexibility in how it uses the aid. Ukrainian soldiers have recounted numerous instances where Russian forces, after being repelled, retreated to Russian territory to regroup and launch new offensives. Logic dictates that these moments of retreat are prime opportunities for Ukraine to strike, yet current restrictions prevent this.

Ukraine’s fight is not just about its survival but also about upholding the post-World War II international order. The Biden administration must clearly articulate its strategic objectives in supporting Ukraine. Whether the goal is a decisive Ukrainian victory or a war of attrition leading to negotiations, clarity is essential. History shows that ambiguous objectives, as seen in Vietnam and Afghanistan, lead to prolonged conflict and uncertain outcomes.

The law of armed conflict grants Ukraine the right to defend itself, including attacking legitimate military targets in Russia. The Biden administration's hesitation, driven by a fear of escalation, inadvertently undermines Ukraine's ability to achieve victory. This fear, while understandable, has not materialized in the form of nuclear conflict despite numerous opportunities. It is time to call Putin's bluff and provide Ukraine with the means to defend itself fully and decisively.

In plain terms, the pattern of initial reluctance followed by eventual provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine demonstrates that fears of escalation are often exaggerated. The Biden administration must recognize this and adjust its policies accordingly. Providing Ukraine with the necessary tools to strike Russian targets and defend its sovereignty without delay is crucial. The history of the past two years shows that calling Putin’s bluff does not lead to World War III; instead, it strengthens Ukraine’s position and brings the prospect of peace closer.