Matt Gurney: Putin’s dangerous brinksmanship puts the whole world at risk
Canadian ForcesA CF-18 fighter intercepts a Russian T-95 bomber near Canadian airspace.
A
few years ago, at a conference, I was chatting with a man whose career
in the United States Air Force had involved, at times, working with that
country’s arsenal of nuclear warheads. It’s an old military truism that
life in uniform is long stretches of boredom interspersed with brief
moments of total panic and frenzied activity. That was especially true,
he said, of his service. Whole careers were spent preparing for
something that even the men in the silos were pretty sure would never
happen.
If the orders had come, the gentleman told me, he wouldn’t have been afraid, but surprised. “We all knew that we’d never launch first,” he said, “and neither would the Soviets. I figured the only time we’d ever have to launch was if an accident had set the whole damned thing off.”
There are plenty of nuclear theorists who’d agree with him. Once both sides could absorb a first strike and still hit back with devastating force (which was the case around 1970 or so, when the Soviet Union erased early American leads in nuclear weapons and delivery systems), the idea of one side initiating a nuclear war became absurd.
But, of course, for accidents.
A nuclear accident could have been a literal accident — an errant missile pops off, a glitchy computer provides “warning” about an attack that isn’t actually happening. But there’s another kind of accident: A small conflict, a minor incident, can rapidly escalate. Intentions can be misread and alliances activated. Even 23 years after the Soviet Union fell, it’s a risk that hasn’t entirely receded.
Indeed, if anything, it’s becoming more pronounced.
A new report out of the London-based European Leadership Network confirms what anyone watching the news knew months ago. Russia is, for reasons only the Russians could explain, acting in a deliberately provocative manner all along its frontier with Europe. This has been most pronounced in Ukraine, clearly, which has undergone a slow-motion invasion by the Russian Army. But Ukraine isn’t the only country to be on the receiving end of Russian military attention. Russian warplanes have been probing NATO’s European air defences. Long-range bombers have stepped up their missions over the Arctic to North America’s defence perimetre, as well. In recent weeks, Swedish military forces launched a major (if ultimately unsuccessful) operation to localize a submarine, presumed to be Russian, believed to be operating in Swedish waters.
Many of these incidents are fairly routine. But the report does cite 11 incidents that were beyond routine military patrols making contact with each other. Three of the incidents posed direct, real, imminent risks of loss of life or the potential for open battle.
None of these three dangerous incidents — a near collision between a passenger plane and a Russian military aircraft, an abduction of an Estonian intelligence officer by Russian troops and the Swedish submarine incident — were accidents in the sense my retired Air Force friend intended. They were all deliberate actions on the part of the Russians (or presumed Russians, in the case of the mysterious submarine). But these events could still have had huge consequences that no one intended or foresaw. As can any of the other, increasingly common meetings between the militaries of the alarmed NATO countries and the newly aggressive Russians.
We can (and should!) all hope that any such encounters are handled professionally and calmly. But there is an inherent risk of putting so much military manpower and equipment into a confined area. If Russian and NATO forces bump and someone, on either side, starts shooting, it is entirely possible that a minor incident could flare up into an honest-to-goodness battle before higher command authorities on either side can calm things down. If there is an actual battle between Russian and NATO forces, whichever side loses (or is losing) will face an ugly, fateful choice: Do you back off, accept defeat and lose face? Or do you reinforce, counterattack and escalate until you fight to at least a draw?
The problem with that scenario is that the other side isn’t any more likely to enjoy losing. NATO knows it can’t back down in the face of Russian aggression, even accidental, unintended aggression, without the credibility of the entire alliance, and therefore its deterrent value, being put at risk. And Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t seeming particularly conciliatory these days. Even if he’s not seeking a battle with NATO, would he allow Russia to lose one that’s started accidentally? This is how wars can start … and both sides here are nuclear-armed.
That’s the problem with world leaders, and human beings in general. We don’t like to lose fights, even if we never sought them to begin with. I don’t believe for an instant that either Russia or the NATO countries intend to start a war with the other. But I’m also not convinced that either side would back down if it felt that it was under attack and that the other side had started it.
There is a difference between deterrence and brinksmanship, with the latter being far more frightening. And yet that seems to be exactly what Russia is pursuing, as a matter of deliberate policy, with its NATO neighbours. This is dangerous, but only the Russians can put an end to it, assuming they’re interested.
Oh, and that conference where I met the retired Air Force officer? One of the topics under discussion was whether NATO had a future in the post-Cold War era. Most thought it didn’t. How things have changed.
National Post
• Email: mgurney@nationalpost.
end quote from:
Matt Gurney: Putin’s dangerous brinksmanship puts the whole world at risk
If the orders had come, the gentleman told me, he wouldn’t have been afraid, but surprised. “We all knew that we’d never launch first,” he said, “and neither would the Soviets. I figured the only time we’d ever have to launch was if an accident had set the whole damned thing off.”
There are plenty of nuclear theorists who’d agree with him. Once both sides could absorb a first strike and still hit back with devastating force (which was the case around 1970 or so, when the Soviet Union erased early American leads in nuclear weapons and delivery systems), the idea of one side initiating a nuclear war became absurd.
But, of course, for accidents.
A nuclear accident could have been a literal accident — an errant missile pops off, a glitchy computer provides “warning” about an attack that isn’t actually happening. But there’s another kind of accident: A small conflict, a minor incident, can rapidly escalate. Intentions can be misread and alliances activated. Even 23 years after the Soviet Union fell, it’s a risk that hasn’t entirely receded.
Indeed, if anything, it’s becoming more pronounced.
A new report out of the London-based European Leadership Network confirms what anyone watching the news knew months ago. Russia is, for reasons only the Russians could explain, acting in a deliberately provocative manner all along its frontier with Europe. This has been most pronounced in Ukraine, clearly, which has undergone a slow-motion invasion by the Russian Army. But Ukraine isn’t the only country to be on the receiving end of Russian military attention. Russian warplanes have been probing NATO’s European air defences. Long-range bombers have stepped up their missions over the Arctic to North America’s defence perimetre, as well. In recent weeks, Swedish military forces launched a major (if ultimately unsuccessful) operation to localize a submarine, presumed to be Russian, believed to be operating in Swedish waters.
Many of these incidents are fairly routine. But the report does cite 11 incidents that were beyond routine military patrols making contact with each other. Three of the incidents posed direct, real, imminent risks of loss of life or the potential for open battle.
None of these three dangerous incidents — a near collision between a passenger plane and a Russian military aircraft, an abduction of an Estonian intelligence officer by Russian troops and the Swedish submarine incident — were accidents in the sense my retired Air Force friend intended. They were all deliberate actions on the part of the Russians (or presumed Russians, in the case of the mysterious submarine). But these events could still have had huge consequences that no one intended or foresaw. As can any of the other, increasingly common meetings between the militaries of the alarmed NATO countries and the newly aggressive Russians.
We can (and should!) all hope that any such encounters are handled professionally and calmly. But there is an inherent risk of putting so much military manpower and equipment into a confined area. If Russian and NATO forces bump and someone, on either side, starts shooting, it is entirely possible that a minor incident could flare up into an honest-to-goodness battle before higher command authorities on either side can calm things down. If there is an actual battle between Russian and NATO forces, whichever side loses (or is losing) will face an ugly, fateful choice: Do you back off, accept defeat and lose face? Or do you reinforce, counterattack and escalate until you fight to at least a draw?
The problem with that scenario is that the other side isn’t any more likely to enjoy losing. NATO knows it can’t back down in the face of Russian aggression, even accidental, unintended aggression, without the credibility of the entire alliance, and therefore its deterrent value, being put at risk. And Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t seeming particularly conciliatory these days. Even if he’s not seeking a battle with NATO, would he allow Russia to lose one that’s started accidentally? This is how wars can start … and both sides here are nuclear-armed.
That’s the problem with world leaders, and human beings in general. We don’t like to lose fights, even if we never sought them to begin with. I don’t believe for an instant that either Russia or the NATO countries intend to start a war with the other. But I’m also not convinced that either side would back down if it felt that it was under attack and that the other side had started it.
There is a difference between deterrence and brinksmanship, with the latter being far more frightening. And yet that seems to be exactly what Russia is pursuing, as a matter of deliberate policy, with its NATO neighbours. This is dangerous, but only the Russians can put an end to it, assuming they’re interested.
Oh, and that conference where I met the retired Air Force officer? One of the topics under discussion was whether NATO had a future in the post-Cold War era. Most thought it didn’t. How things have changed.
National Post
• Email: mgurney@nationalpost.
end quote from:
Matt Gurney: Putin’s dangerous brinksmanship puts the whole world at risk
No comments:
Post a Comment