Denuclearizing Russia, and the World
Russia can be shut out of every international organization, while its economy is crushed and it pays to rebuild Ukraine—or it can give up its nukes, along with the US, as Obama sought to achieve.
If Putin is going to threaten to blow up the world, his country should be banished from it until he no longer possesses the ability. In this way, Russia’s price for re-entry into the community of nations should be either the removal of its president or its denuclearization. That would mean the continuation of economic sanctions and Russia’s continued suspension from major international bodies for quite some time. The choice is simple: either defang the bear or remove its ringleader.
Of course, Russia will be loath to denuclearize. So, forcing it to would require a substantial package of carrots and sticks. Russia can remain a moderately wealthy oil state or be transformed into North Korea. It can participate in major global institutions or get left out in the cold. In this way, Russia might be removed from the G-20, taken out of the WTO, booted from the European Commission, suspended from the Security Council, and held financially liable for its destruction of Ukrainian cities. And, of course, the sanctions will only bite harder as Europe gradually weans itself off Russian oil and natural gas.
But getting Russia to denuclearize would probably take still more.
President Obama began his presidency with the aim of getting the world to zero nukes. The plan had the support of every living former American Secretary of State, including Henry Kissinger. And it involved a major “reset with Russia” that saw the Obama administration working closely with Putin to carry out massive cuts in the two state’s nuclear arsenals. The program fell apart after Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2014. Yet, if Russia continues suffering the sort of losses it has seen in the last month, it may find that near total denuclearization, amid massive American cuts to its own nuclear arsenal, with serious cuts by other major powers, is preferable to continued isolation and economic depression.
A few back of the napkin figures highlight the dangers of the Russian army continuing to fight. American defense analysts believe that at least 15,000 Russian troops have already been killed in Ukraine, and twice as many have been seriously wounded. They also believe that Russia had about 150,000 troops in Ukraine, and there is no reserve army that might be sent in to finish the job. Thus, Russia has already lost almost a third of its forces in the first seven weeks of fighting. Another month and it will have lost more fighters than the Soviet Union lost in its decade in Afghanistan, and more than America lost in its two decade War on Terror. Four months and they will have lost more troops than America lost in its decade in Vietnam.
In fact, at the current rate of killing and wounding of Russian soldiers, there would be no more left in five months.
Many analysts argue that modern military units can’t function when they have lost a tenth of their fighters. Meanwhile, Ukrainians will continue enlisting and they will become increasingly battle hardened as more weaponry becomes available and the military processes its new recruits. Their weaponry is only going to get better, as will their aim. And they are fighting for their homeland against a demoralized adversary. So, as things get tough, they are likely to get tougher, while their opponent gets touchier. They are also fighting for their lives, and for revenge. Russia has not just invaded their homeland, after all. It has unleashed a genocidal level of violence that will define their nation and be remembered for generations.
And after Putin’s nuclear threats, they will be held hostage to his whims until he is either removed from office or buried.
It is commonly said that Russia becomes more totalitarian when it wins a war, and it embarks on a period of reform when it loses. Hence, if history is any guide to the future, Russia may be due for a period of democratization. That would be hard to imagine given its recent fascist fervor, but stranger things have been known to happen than for a fascist society to become dramatically transformed when their leader is humiliated in battle. In fact, fascism commonly ends with devastating defeat in battle, because it is rooted in illusions, which do not stand up to the battlefield. Fascism is also premised on the strength of the its leader. Take that away and the cult of personality crumbles, and with it the illusion of greatness on which the whole enterprise depended.
Of course, Putin is not likely to continue in Ukraine until every last Russian soldier is either killed or wounded, and he may well be in the process of retreat as we speak. But if he is given a chance to save face with the illusion of a win, Russia will remain a threat to Georgia, Moldavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and even Ukraine. Putin may well rule for 20 years more, so all he needs to do is bide his time until Biden is out of the White House, a more corrupt leader is elected in Ukraine, or a more fractured leadership emerges in Nato. In this way, we should neither expect Putin, nor the nuclear threat, nor the threat to his neighbors, nor even the threat to Ukraine, to go away when Russian troops depart the battlefield.
Without western arms, Ukraine might not do nearly so well, and there may be no guarantee that western arms will be so forthcoming next time.
Europe can get along with a non-nuclear Russia, because it can defend itself without the threat of nuclear war. And the world would be a lot safer with a much less nuclear America, because nobody really knows whether it is going to sit down with you in a drum circle or punch you in the face. China would certainly gain by reducing its nukes in accord with America, because it would come out relatively stronger. And the same could be said of India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, like everybody else, Americans would be more secure living in a less heavily armed world. The general removal of the nuclear Sword of Damocles would also facilitate international cooperation by minimizing the difference between UN Security Council and General Assembly states.
Of course, getting to zero may be a dream, given the threat from rogue regimes like North Korea, and it would be foolhardy to treat Israel as any bit less duplicitous. But America would possess substantial incentives to force it into compliance, and China might be able to do the same with North Korea. So, once we got into the low hundreds of warheads in each of the most powerful states, the arms cuts might slow to a crawl. But that would probably be enough to take nuclear war from being an existential threat to humanity to a more local threat to specific cities. Russia could save face by knowing it is one of many denuclearizing states.
And Putin might even be able to save his face from getting blown off.
~ Theo Horesh, author of The Fascism This Time: And the Global Future of Democracy