By William J. Astore, Brave New Europe, 3/19/24

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), has taught at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology.

In an age when American presidents routinely boast of having the world’s finest military, where nearly trillion-dollar war budgets are now a new version of routine, let me bring up one vitally important but seldom mentioned fact: making major cuts to military spending would increase U.S. national security.

Why? Because real national security can neither be measured nor safeguarded solely by military power (especially the might of a military that hasn’t won a major war since 1945). Economic vitality matters so much more, as does the availability and affordability of health care, education, housing, and other crucial aspects of life unrelated to weaponry and war. Add to that the importance of a Congress responsive to the needs of the working poor, the hungry and the homeless among us. And don’t forget that the moral fabric of our nation should be based not on a military eternally ready to make war but on a determination to uphold international law and defend human rights. It’s high time for America to put aside its conveniently generic “rules-based order” anchored in imperial imperatives and face its real problems. A frank look in the mirror is what’s most needed here.

It should be simple really: national security is best advanced not by endlessly preparing for war, but by fostering peace. Yet, despite their all-too-loud disagreements, Washington’s politicians share a remarkably bipartisan consensus when it comes to genuflecting before and wildly overfunding the military-industrial complex. In truth, ever-rising military spending and yet more wars are a measure of how profoundly unhealthy our country actually is.

“The Scholarly Junior Senator from South Dakota”

Such insights are anything but new and, once upon a time, could even be heard in the halls of Congress. They were, in fact, being aired there within a month of my birth as, on August 2, 1963, Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota — later a hero of mine — rose to address his fellow senators about “New Perspectives on American Security.”

Nine years later, he (and his vision of the military) would, of course, lose badly to Republican Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. No matter that he had been the one who served in combat with distinction in World War II, piloting a B-24 bomber on 35 missions over enemy territory, even as Nixon, then a Navy officer, amassed a tidy sum playing poker. Somehow, McGovern, a decorated hero, became associated with “weakness” because he opposed this country’s disastrous Vietnam War, while Nixon manufactured a self-image as the staunchest Cold Warrior around, never missing a chance to pose as tough on communism (until, as president, he memorably visited Communist China, opening relations with that country).

But back to 1963, when McGovern gave that speech (which you can read in the online Senate Congressional Record, volume 109, pages 13,986-94). At that time, the government was already dedicating more than half of all federal discretionary spending to the Pentagon, roughly the same percentage as today. Yet was it spending all that money wisely? McGovern’s answer was a resounding no. Congress, he argued, could instantly cut 10% of the Pentagon budget without compromising national security one bit. Indeed, security would be enhanced by investing in this country instead of buying yet more overpriced weaponry. The senator and former bomber pilot was especially critical of the massive amounts then being spent on the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the absurd planetary “overkill” it represented vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, America’s main competitor in the nuclear arms race. As he put it then:

“What possible advantage [can be had] in appropriating additional billions of dollars to build more [nuclear] missiles and bombs when we already have excess capacity to destroy the potential enemy? How many times is it necessary to kill a man or kill a nation?”

How many, indeed? Think about that question as today’s Congress continues to ramp up spending, now estimated at nearly $2 trillion over the next 30 years, on — and yes, this really is the phrase — “modernizing” the country’s nuclear triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), as well as its ultra-expensive nuclear-missile-firing submarines and stealth bombers. And keep in mind that the U.S. already has an arsenal quite capable of wiping out life on several Earth-sized planets.

What, according to McGovern, was this country sacrificing in its boundless pursuit of mass death? In arguments that should resonate strongly today, he noted that America’s manufacturing base was losing vigor and vitality compared to those of countries like Germany and Japan, while the economy was weakening, thanks to trade imbalances and the exploding costs of that nuclear arms race. Mind you, back then, this country was still on the gold standard and unburdened by an almost inconceivable national debt, 60 years later, of more than $34 trillion, significant parts of it thanks to this country’s failed “war on terror” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere across all too much of the planet.

McGovern did recognize that, given how the economy was (and still is) organized, meaningful cuts to military spending could hurt in the short term. So, he suggested that Congress create an Economic Conversion Commission to ensure a smoother transition from guns to butter. His goal was simple: to make the economy “less dependent upon arms spending.” Excess military spending, he noted, was “wasting” this country’s human resources, while “restricting” its political leadership in the world.

In short, that distinguished veteran of World War II, then serving as “the scholarly junior Senator from South Dakota” (in the words of Senator Jennings Randolph of West Virginia), was anything but proud of America’s “arsenal of democracy.” He wasn’t, in fact, a fan of arsenals at all. Rather, he wanted to foster a democracy worthy of the American people, while freeing us as much as possible from the presence of just such an arsenal.

To that end, he explained what he meant by defending democracy:

“When a major percentage of the public resources of our society is devoted to the accumulation of devastating weapons of war, the spirit of democracy suffers. When our laboratories and our universities and our scientists and our youth are caught up in war preparations, the spirit of [freedom] is hampered.

“America must, of course, maintain a fully adequate military defense. But we have a rich heritage and a glorious future that are too precious to risk in an arms race that goes beyond any reasonable criteria of need.

“We need to remind ourselves that we have sources of strength, of prestige, and international leadership based on other than nuclear bombs.”

Imagine if his call had been heeded. This country might today be a far less militaristicplace.

Something was, in fact, afoot in the early 1960s in America. In 1962, despite the wishes of the Pentagon, President John F. Kennedy used diplomacy to get us out of the Cuban Missile Crisis with the Soviet Union and then, in June 1963, made a classic commencement address about peace at American University. Similarly, in support of his call for substantial reductions in military spending, McGovern cited the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961 during which he introduced the now-classic phrase “military-industrial complex,” warning that “we must never let the weight of this combination [of the military with industry, abetted by Congress] endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

Echoing Ike’s warning in what truly seems like another age, McGovern earned the approbation of his Senate peers. His vision of a better, more just, more humane America seemed, however briefly, to resonate. He wanted to spend money not on more nuclear bombs and missiles but on “more classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and capable teachers.” On better hospitals and expanded nursing-home care. On a cleaner environment, with rivers and streams saved from pollution related to excessive military production. And he hoped as well that, as military bases were closed, they would be converted to vocational schools or healthcare centers.

McGovern’s vision, in other words, was aspirational and inspirational. He saw a future America increasingly at peace with the world, eschewing arms races for investments in our own country and each other. It was a vision of the future that went down fast in the Vietnam War era to come, yet one that’s even more needed today.

Praise from Senate Peers

Here’s another way in which times have changed: McGovern’s vision won high praise from his Senate peers in the Democratic Party. Jennings Randolph of West Virginia agreed that “unsurpassed military power in combination with areas of grave economic weakness is not a manifestation of sound security policy.” Like McGovern, he called for a reinvestment in America, especially in underdeveloped rural areas like those in his home state. Joseph Clark, Jr., of Pennsylvania, also a World War II veteran, “thoroughly” agreed that the Pentagon budget “needs most careful scrutiny on the floor of the Senate, and that in former years it has not received that scrutiny.” Stephen Young of Ohio, who served in both World War I and World War II, looked ahead toward an age of peace, expressing hope that “perhaps the necessity for these stupendous appropriations [for weaponry] will not be as real in the future.”

Possibly the strongest response came from Frank Church of Idaho, who reminded his fellow senators of their duty to the Constitution. That sacred document, he noted, “vests in Congress the power to determine the size of our military budget, and I feel we have tended too much to rubberstamp the recommendations that come to us from the Pentagon, without making the kind of critical analysis that the Senator from South Dakota has attempted… We cannot any longer shirk this responsibility.” Church saluted McGovern as someone who “dared to look a sacred cow [the Pentagon budget] in the teeth.”

A final word came from Wayne Morse of Oregon. Very much a gadfly, Morse shifted the topic to U.S. foreign aid, noting that too much of that aid was military-related, constituting a “shocking waste” to the taxpayer even as it proved detrimental to the development of democracy abroad, most notably in Latin America. “We should be spending the money for bread, rather than for military aid,” he concluded.

Imagine that! Bread instead of bullets and bombs for the world. Of course, even then, it didn’t happen, but in the 60 years since then, the rhetoric of the Senate has certainly changed. A McGovern-style speech today would undoubtedly be booed down on both sides of the aisle. Consider, for example, consistent presidential and Congressional clamoring now for more military aid to Israel during a genocide in Gaza. So far, U.S. government actions are more consistent with letting starving children in Gaza eat lead instead of bread.

Peace Must Be Our Profession

What was true then remains true today. Real national defense should not be synonymous with massive spending on wars and weaponry. Quite the reverse: whenever possible, wars should be avoided; whenever possible, weapons should be beaten into plowshares, and those plowshares used to improve the health and well-being of people everywhere.

Oh, and that Biblical reference of mine (swords into plowshares) is intentional. It’s meant to highlight the ancient roots of the wisdom of avoiding war, of converting weapons into useful tools to sustain and provide for the rest of us.

Yet America’s leaders on both sides of the aisle have long lost the vision of George McGovern, of John F. Kennedy, of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Today’s president and today’s Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, boast of spending vast sums on weapons, not only to strengthen America’s imperial power but to defeat Russia and deter China, while bragging all the while of the “good” jobs they’re allegedly creatinghere in America in the process. (This country’s major weapons makers would agreewith them, of course!)

McGovern had a telling rejoinder to such thinking. “Building weapons,” he noted in 1963, “is a seriously limited device for building the economy,” while an “excessive reliance on arms,” as well as overly “rigid diplomacy,” serve only to torpedo promising opportunities for peace.

Back then, it seemed to politicians like McGovern, as well as President Kennedy, that clearing a path toward peace was not only possible but imperative, especially considering the previous year’s near-cataclysmic Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet just a few months after McGovern’s inspiring address in the Senate, Kennedy had been assassinated and his calls for peace put on ice as a new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, succumbed to pressure by escalating U.S. military involvement in what mushroomed into the catastrophic Vietnam War.

In today’s climate of perpetual war, the dream of peace continues to wither. Still, despite worsening odds, it’s important that it must not be allowed to die. The high ground must be wrested away from our self-styled “warriors,” who aim to keep the factories of death churning, no matter the cost to humanity and the planet.

My fellow Americans, we need to wake up from the nightmare of forever war. This country’s wars aren’t simply being fought “over there” in faraway and, at least to us, seemingly forgettable places like Syria and Somalia. In some grim fashion, our wars are already very much being fought right here in this deeply over-armed country of ours.

George McGovern, a bomber pilot from World War II, knew the harsh face of war and fought in the Senate for a more peaceful future, one no longer haunted by debilitating arms races and the prospect of a doomsday version of overkill. Joining him in that fight was John F. Kennedy, who, in 1963, suggested that “this generation of Americans has already had enough, more than enough, of war, and hate, and oppression.”

If only.

Today’s generation of “leaders” seems not yet to have had their fill of war, hate, and oppression. That tragic fact — not China, not Russia, not any foreign power — is now the greatest threat to this country’s “national security.” And it’s a threat only aggravated by ever more colossal Pentagon budgets still being rubberstamped by a spinelessly complicit Congress.

I was asked a few months ago by a blog reader about Plokhy. I have not read any of his books but below is an in-depth conversation with him where one can get an idea of his background and views. He is a professor at Harvard University. He tends toward a more Ukrainian nationalist take on history and tacks with the pro-western view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Maidan overthrow and glosses over or omits very important contextual information for understanding these events, especially the 2014 Maidan. He also states an outright falsehood when he claims that the Russian language is not persecuted right now in Ukraine. See here, here, here and here.

While there is plenty to disagree with (such as his gross whitewashing of Stepan Bandera and the Galician SS – Fridman’s mental gymnastics here were frankly embarrassing – as well as the disingenuousness of the nature of the influence of Neo-Nazis in contemporary Ukraine), he makes some interesting points at various places. I noticed that when he uses the term “It’s my understanding…”, it’s usually an indication that he doesn’t necessarily know much of what he’s talking about but is engaging in guesswork.

It’s useful to hear people with a different position even if it only ends up largely crystalizing what, how and why we disagree with them. It’s not intellectually healthy to keep ourselves in an echo chamber.

Fridman has said that he will interview anyone and is interested in talking to people with a wide range of views. So far, the only people I’m aware of that he has interviewed that may provide a counterpoint to the US establishment narrative on Russia and Ukraine is Oliver Stone and John Mearsheimer. There are a number of people with a specialized academic background who would be great for Fridman to interveiw, such as Ivan Katchanovksi, Olga Baysha, Geoffrey Roberts, Nicolai Petro and Richard Sakwa. – Natylie

YouTube link here.

Note: If you’re following the subtitles on the screen, there are some errors such as Cossacks coming up as Kazakhs and later Brezhnev as Beria.

Kremlin, 4/11/24

The presidents continued consultations at a working lunch.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Lukashenko,

Thank you for coming in time for Cosmonautics Day, especially because we have a major event – our cosmonauts, including the first female cosmonaut from Belarus returned safely to earth.

We have another good event – our new heavy missile flew from a new spaceport. This is yet another stage in the development of the space industry in Russia.

And, of course, in addition to all other things, we have something to discuss. I am referring to our economic ties that are making steady headway. Last year, we demonstrated good economic growth rates and now everything is on the upsurge.

Overall, we see even bigger growth in the first months of the current year than we had in the past year. We are developing diversification, cooperation and interoperability. So, everything is on the upsurge and we are very happy about this.

Naturally, we will talk about security issues in the western borders of both Belarus and Russia. I know that you have information on everything taking place in Ukraine. Nevertheless, I will certainly use your visit to tell you in detail about what is going on.

In general, as you know, we have never rejected a peaceful settlement of disputes. Moreover, this is what we were inclined to do. It was not Russia that started this war in 2014. Everything began with a coup d’etat in Ukraine. Later, when everything moved to a hot phase, you initiated the conduct of peace negotiations in Belarus. We launched them in two cities.

Later, the negotiating teams moved to Turkey, to Istanbul.

We largely completed this work there, which took us much time and effort. We initialed it on both sides. Ukraine also initialed it. This paper, this document was initialed.

As you know, later, under pressure from the West, the Ukrainian side opted out of these agreements. I would like to remind you that at the time we were told that we could not sign the document in this manner, that Ukraine could not sign the document “with a gun to its head,” that we had to withdraw our troops from Kiev. So we did. Immediately after we did that, our agreements were discarded.

Now, as you know, the idea of holding some kind of conference in Switzerland is being promoted. We are not invited there. Moreover, they think that we have nothing to do there, and at the same time they say that nothing can be solved without us. Since we are not going there (it has now turned into a kind of nonsense), they say that we refuse to negotiate. We were not invited, but they say that we refuse.

It would be funny if it were not so sad. Once again, I would like to emphasise that we are in favour of talks. But not in the format of being imposed any schemes that have nothing to do with reality. Why do I say that? Because if the need arises, I will allow myself to turn to you, and maybe we will continue consultations with you in this area.

As for other matters, you are also well aware that, unfortunately, we have recently seen a series of strikes on our energy facilities, and we had to respond. I would like to emphasise that in winter time, guided by humanitarian considerations, we did not launch any strikes on energy facilities. I mean, they wanted to have our social institutions, hospitals and so on left without power supply. But after a series of strikes on our energy facilities, we had to respond.

I repeat once again: if everything gets down to solving the issues we talked about from the outset, and in the energy sector they are related, among other things, to solving one of the tasks that we set for ourselves, which is demilitarisation… Above all, we proceed from the fact that in this way we directly impact the military-industrial complex of Ukraine. But if we do get to the point where I started, if we move on to talks about resolving all the issues in other ways, then of course, as I have already said many times, we are ready for that.

You and I will talk about it in greater detail, I will tell you everything in detail.

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko: Mr Putin, thank you for your updates. I can confirm everything you have said, because you and I revisited these issues on numerous occasions – a year ago, and several months ago – and discussed them, including the peace settlement. They are planning to hold what they call a peace conference in Switzerland. But if they want to talk about peace in Ukraine without us, let them do it.

Once again, we believe that the only thing they can agree on there is how to intensify the escalation of this conflict. Without Russia, what peace process are we talking about? No peace settlement is possible without Russia.

Maybe they are right in choosing not to invite us, because there is actually nothing to talk to them about when they try to invite more than 100 states and dictate something to us or enforce something on us. This does not sound like a proposal for peace talks.

Vladimir Putin: I think they – or at least the opposite side – has driven itself into a corner, to a certain extent, by refusing to negotiate, expecting to defeat Russia on the battlefield, to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Now, having understood that this is impossible and having refused to negotiate, they have found themselves in a predicament.

Alexander Lukashenko: Indeed, they have found an ingenious way out.

Vladimir Putin: But our goal is not putting everyone in a tough spot. Just the opposite: we are ready for constructive efforts. But clearly, nothing detached from reality can be imposed on us.

Alexander Lukashenko: What I wanted to say is that I wholeheartedly support, absolutely wholeheartedly, the Russian authorities and you personally when it comes to the peace process in this conflict.

There are all the conditions for sitting down and negotiating the issue. If they do not want it, the reason is clear to us; we have answered that question. If those across the ocean choose to talk about peace, Ukraine will hear their voice. Ukrainians should know, especially the ordinary people, that the issue does not depend on us. Speaking plainly, the ball is in their court.

I remember the process that began in Belarus. We hosted three rounds of talks, and the fourth round was held in Istanbul. You later sent the photocopies to me. First you showed me the document, which I read, and then you forwarded the copy to me, just as we had agreed. It was the initialled document. It registered major concessions from both Russians and Ukrainians. And then a visitor called them [Ukrainians] down and ordered them to keep fighting to the last Ukrainian.

In other words, we wholeheartedly support the peace process, which Russia never refused to discuss, including today.

If we can contribute to this, you are aware of our capabilities. We will always stand together and act in the same spirit as you.

Thank you for the space mission. It is clear that it would not be held without your decision. We agreed that we would send a Belarusian woman.

Continue reading here.

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 2/6/24

New Polish Defense Minister Wladysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, who’s a political appointee with absolutely zero military experience, said in an interview with local media that “I assume every scenario, and I take the worst ones most seriously” when asked about the possibility of Russia attacking his country. This is nothing but shameless scaremongering aimed at justifying Poland’s subordination to Germany last week after it informally rubbished its reparations demands and agreed to form a “military Schengen”.

Here are some background briefings for those who haven’t been following this all that closely:

* 24 November 2023: “NATO’s Proposed ‘Military Schengen’ Is A Thinly Disguised German Power Play Over Poland”

* 17 January 2024: “Leaked German War Plans Against Russia Are Aimed At Advancing The ‘Military Schengen’ Proposal”

* 19 January 2024: “Germany Is Rebuilding ‘Fortress Europe; To Assist The US’ ‘Pivot (Back) To Asia’”

* 22 January 2024: “The ‘Baltic Defense Line’ Is Meant To Accelerate The German-Led ‘Military Schengen’”

* 1 February 2024: “Poland Subordinated Itself To Germany On Two Fronts Over The Past Week”

They’ll now be summarized for the reader’s convenience.

German-backed Donald Tusk’s return to the Polish premiership emboldened the bloc’s de facto leader to implement the next phase of its hegemonic plans whereby it sought to expand its military influence across the continent. To that end, it proposed the “military Schengen”, which it clinched with the Netherlands and Poland last week to facilitate the shipment of troops and equipment to its new tank base in Lithuania. This corridor will likely be expanded up to Estonia and possibly Finland in the future.

The resultant “Fortress Europe” that’s being built at an accelerated pace nowadays ominously resembles its World War II-era counterpart in terms of structure and the strategic intent of preparing for war with Russia, which Poland is now scaremongering about to justify subordinating itself to Germany. The domestic context within which Kosiniak-Kamysz claimed that he’s taking seriously the scenario of Russia attacking it was addressed in these two analyses below:

* 10 January 2023: “Poland Is In The Throes Of Its Worst Political Crisis Since The 1980s”

* 14 January 2024: “Tusk’s Appeal For Patriots To Support Ukraine Is A Distraction From Poland’s Political Crisis”

In brief, Tusk has resorted to totalitarian means for imposing his envisaged German-inspired liberal–globalist model onto this traditionally conservative-nationalist society, which provoked its worst political crisis since the 1980s. He feebly tried to distract the public from this on a faux patriotic basis by hyping them up about the false threat that Russia poses to their country from the east, but this narrative was easily discredited after remembering that Poland borders the Russian region of Kaliningrad in the north.

With this in mind, both his and Kosiniak-Kamysz’s claims are discredited since Russia could already attack and invade Poland from that direction without having to first storm through Ukraine, not to mention via Belarus which has a much larger border with Poland. Whereas the first peddled this lie to distract from Poland’s political crisis, the second is reviving them to justify last week’s “military Schengen” deal that’ll see German troops freely transit to and from Poland for the first time since World War II.

Even more concerning is Deputy Foreign Minister Andrzej Szejn extending a “herzlich wilkommen!” (“warm welcome”) to German troops in the middle of last month if they want to permanently deploy in his country like they just agreed to do in neighboring Lithuania. The only possibly chance of preemptively mitigating public anger at this unprecedented violation of Polish historical memory and sovereignty is to play the Russia card that regrettably appeals to a lot of conservative-nationalists.

Be that as it may, the opposition is well aware of the Tusk Regime’s narrative tricks and is unlikely to fall for its scaremongering about a Russian invasion of their country from Ukraine, though it should also be said that the former government relied on similar such rhetoric to justify arming Kiev. Nevertheless, they and their base soured on that country late last year amidst the Polish-Ukrainian grain dispute, and the premier at the time even accused Germany of cutting a deal with Ukraine behind Poland’s back.

For these reasons, the latest scaremongering isn’t expected to reap the desired results, and the opposition would do well to maximally expose how the Tusk Regime subordinated Poland to Germany via the “military Schengen” on a faux anti-Russian basis that’s really about him repaying favors to Berlin. The previous government’s planned military investments were supposed to lead to Poland becoming the leader of a Central European coalition for containing Russia centered on the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI).

That would have then in turn enabled Poland to restore its long-lost Great Power status with time, all with the grand strategic purpose of creating a new center of influence between Germany and Russia, which Warsaw could then leverage for multi–aligning between them, the US, China, and Turkiye. These plans have since been scrapped under Tusk, who preferred to subordinate Poland to Germany by having Berlin take over Warsaw’s 3SI through the “military Schengen” and turn Poland into its largest vassal.

His country’s new geostrategic role is to support Germany’s leading position in containing Russia in Central Europe, to which end Berlin will probably let Warsaw continue with its planned military investment program, but with the intent of it supporting German interests instead of Polish ones. Even if Poland participates in an extended “military Schengen” up to Estonia, it’ll be as Germany’s sidekick, not as an independent pole of influence in the region like its previous government envisaged.

In the modern-day “Fortress Europe”, Poland is playing a similar role vis-à-vis Germany as fascist Italy played with the Nazis, who were also junior German partners whose delegated task was to relieve some of the burden upon Berlin for controlling parts of the continent. Back then, Rome’s German-approved “sphere of influence” was in Southeastern Europe, while Warsaw’s will remain in Central Europe. The difference, however, is that Poland’s new subordination to Germany might last a lot longer than Italy’s.

by Dmitry Trenin, RT, 3/23/24

By Dmitry Trenin, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Strategic stability is usually understood as the absence of incentives for a nuclear-armed power to launch a massive first strike. Typically, it’s viewed primarily in military-technical terms. The reasons why an attack may be contemplated are usually not taken into account.

This idea emerged in the middle of the last century, when the USSR had achieved military-strategic parity with the US and the Cold War between them had entered a “mature” phase of limited confrontation and some predictability. The solution to the problem of strategic stability was then seen in the constant maintenance of contacts between the political leadership of the two superpowers. Which led to arms control and transparency in arranging their respective arsenals.

However, the first quarter of the 21st century is ending in conditions very different from the relative international political stability of the 1970s. The US-centric world order established after the end of the Cold War is being seriously challenged and its foundations are visibly shaken. The global hegemony of Washington and the position of the collective West as a whole is weakening, while the economic, military, scientific and technological might and political importance of non-Western countries –first and foremost China, but also India– are growing. This is leading to a deterioration in relations between the US and other power centers.

The two largest nuclear powers, Russia and the US, are in a state of semi-direct armed conflict. This confrontation is officially regarded in Russia as an existential threat. This situation has become possible as a result of the failure of strategic deterrence (in its geopolitical dimension) in an area where Russia’s vital interests are present. It should be noted that the main cause of the conflict is Washington’s conscious disregard –for three decades now– of Moscow’s clearly and explicitly expressed security interests.

Moreover, in the Ukrainian conflict, the US military and political leadership has not only articulated, but has publicly expressed, the mission of using its proxy to inflict a strategic military defeat on Russia, despite its nuclear status.

This is a complex undertaking in which the collective economic, political, military, military-technical, intelligence and informational capacity of the West is integrated with the actions of the Ukrainian armed forces in direct combat against the Russian army. In other words, the US is trying to defeat Russia not only without using nuclear weapons, but even without formally engaging in hostilities.

In this context, the declaration by the five nuclear powers on January 3, 2022, that “nuclear war should not be waged” and that “there can be no winners,” seems like a relic of the past. A proxy war between the nuclear powers is already underway; moreover, in the course of this conflict, more and more restrictions are being removed, both in terms of the weapon systems used and the participation of Western troops, as well as the geographical limits of the theater of war. It is possible to pretend that a certain ‘strategic stability’ is being maintained, but only if, like the US, a player sets the task of inflicting a strategic defeat on the enemy at the hands of its client state and expects that the enemy will not dare to use nuclear weapons.

Thus, the concept of strategic stability in its original form – the creation and maintenance of military-technical conditions to prevent a sudden massive nuclear strike – only partially retains its meaning under current conditions.

Strengthening nuclear deterrence could be the solution to the real problem of restoring strategic stability, which has been seriously disrupted by the ongoing and escalating conflict. To begin with, it is worth rethinking the concept of deterrence and, in the process, changing its name.

For example, instead of a passive, we should talk about an active form. The adversary should not remain in a state of comfort, believing that the war he is waging with the help of another country will not affect him in any way. In other words, it is necessary to put fear back into the minds and hearts of the enemy’s leaders. The beneficial sort of fear, it’s worth stressing.

It must also be recognized that the limits of purely verbal intervention have been exhausted at this stage of the Ukrainian conflict. Channels of communication all the way to the top must remain open around the clock, but the most important messages at this stage must be sent through concrete steps: doctrinal changes; military exercises to test them; underwater and aerial patrols along the coasts of the likely enemy; warnings about preparations for nuclear tests and the tests themselves; the imposition of no-fly zones over part of the Black Sea, and so on. The point of these actions is not only to demonstrate determination and readiness to use available capabilities to protect Russia’s vital interests, but –most importantly– to bring the enemy to a halt and encourage it to engage in serious dialogue.

The escalation ladder does not end here. Military-technical steps can be followed by real acts, warnings of which have already been given: for example, attacks on air bases and supply centers on the territory of NATO countries, and so on. There is no need to go further. We simply need to understand, and help the enemy to understand, that strategic stability in the real, not narrow, technical sense of the word is not compatible with armed conflict between nuclear powers, even if (for the time being) it is being waged indirectly.

It is unlikely that the enemy will accept this state of affairs easily and immediately. At the very least, they will need to realize that this is our position and draw the appropriate conclusions.

It is time for us to start revising the conceptual apparatus we use in matters of security strategy. We talk about international security, strategic stability, deterrence, arms control, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. These concepts emerged in the course of the development of Western – mainly American – political thought and found immediate practical application in US foreign policy. They are based on existing realities but adapted to American foreign policy objectives. We have tried to adapt them to our needs, but with mixed success.

It is time to move on and develop our own concepts that reflect Russia’s position in the world as well as its needs.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team:

Переосмысление стратегической стабильности