But the logic of Kennedy’s superpower sounds poignant when Putin is pushed into a corner by the strategic catastrophe of his war, Ukraine’s heroic resistance, and his extraordinary allied arms and ammunition carrier for billions of dollars.
Speaking at a fundraiser in Potomac, Maryland, on Monday night, Biden said he was concerned that Putin had not yet devised a way out of the war, despite the “computational” nature of the former KGB officer.
Meanwhile, senior national security officials acknowledge that they still do not know what kind of growing success for Russia in eastern and southern Ukraine would allow Putin to declare victory and de-escalate the war, CNN’s Caitlan Collins said. This is all a concern. But this seems somewhat incompatible with US policy. After all, Washington’s explicitly stated goal in support of Ukraine is for Putin to lose the war. Biden has asked Congress for $ 33 billion to send military and other aid to Ukraine, and the House of Representatives voted Tuesday to pass a bill worth about $ 40 billion. Washington is flooding the battlefield with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, radars, drones, artillery shells and howitzers.
This aggressive Western approach, the slow progress of Putin’s war of attrition and the lack of any diplomatic efforts to end the war mean that it is almost certain that the Russian leader will be even more backward in a dangerous corner.
The only way out for Putin now seems to be capitulation and the tacit acknowledgment that Western efforts, combined with fierce Ukrainian courage, have overcome him – a position that would be politically impossible to take.
How far would Putin go?
There is no real consensus on what Putin can do if he is desperate. Although he does not share Washington’s logical and precise view that he is losing the war, there are no indications that he is suicidal and would risk starting a full-scale nuclear confrontation by testing the West’s resolve.
Several senior US officials have publicly expressed fears that Putin could resort to lower-yielding tactical nuclear weapons as an alternative to humiliating defeat in Ukraine. There was some relief from that result on Tuesday when National Intelligence Director Avril Haynes told a congressional committee that the United States was of the opinion that Putin had “no immediate potential to use nuclear weapons.” The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, said the assessment also included tactical or combat devices.
But it is hardly alarming to consider the possibility. Putin has proven to be a ruthless leader with little remorse for inflicting mass casualties. He destroyed cities in Chechnya and unleashed his forces against civilians in Syria. His war in Ukraine included relentless shelling and bombing of residential areas, schools, stations and shelters, as well as obvious war crimes by his troops. Thousands of his soldiers have died. And Putin has already used weapons of mass destruction – for example, targeting Russian deserters on British soil with radioactive elements and nerve agents – without paying attention to civilians, according to the UK government.
Russia’s desire to threaten the use of nuclear weapons – in a way the Soviet Union rarely did during the Cold War – to terrorize Western society, meanwhile underscores the kind of advantage the world’s most terrible arsenal can bring to fraudulent nations they want to prevent the possibility of Western interference.
Putin shows no signs of looking for ways out
Although the United States may be criticized for not giving Putin the outcome Biden speculates about, such an initiative would be difficult – and may not work anyway.
For starters, Putin is not looking at exits. While the war is an economic, military and strategic disaster for Russia, the Kremlin leader is dancing to his own logic. If he cannot control all of Ukraine or overthrow its government, creating enormous human and material destruction that prevents Ukraine from functioning as a normal economy and punishes its aspirations to join the West may be enough – and it may work. as a deterrent to other former Soviet orbital states.
This may be one of the reasons why Haynes suggested on Tuesday that the Russian leader was “preparing for a protracted conflict in Ukraine, during which he still intends to achieve goals beyond Donbass.” But she warned that the mismatch between Putin’s military capabilities and his ambitions meant he could be forced to return to this dangerous corner – and pounce.
“The current trend increases the likelihood that President Putin will resort to more drastic means, including imposing martial law, reorienting industrial production or potentially escalating military action to free up the resources needed to achieve his goals as the conflict drags on or if he realizes Russia is losing in Ukraine, “Haynes said.
The idea that Putin could be brought out of the strategic dead end he is in also falls for two other reasons. First, the Russian leader rejected all diplomatic diversions, requests and warnings to de-escalate the conflict before the invasion. Now the stakes for Russia’s personal prestige, political position and reputation – as well as its assessment of history – are sharper. In fact, there were signs of a possible new escalation on Tuesday when Belarus moved special forces to Ukraine’s borders, citing what it said was Western aggression.
The second reason why this may not be the time for diplomacy lies in the belief in hawks in Western capitals, such as London and Washington, that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s forces, reddened by Western weapons, have won the right to win the war – and can he eventually did. After all, Ukraine is the affected country that has suffered an unprovoked invasion.
So far, Putin has not targeted arms convoys aimed at Ukraine on NATO territory or organized major cyber attacks against Western targets – at least those that are publicly known. Both omissions suggest a deterrent.
But as the war drags on, with the constant danger of escalation or miscalculations that would hasten a wider clash, cracks can be found in the stronghold of Western unity.
French President Emmanuel Macron, who tried unsuccessfully to persuade Putin not to invade Ukraine, condemned the Russian leader’s militant rhetoric on Victory Day. But he also said that in the end, Ukraine and Russia will have to sit down and talk about peace – a cause that will not be served by Moscow’s “humiliation”. Macron then spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping, an ally of Putin, on Tuesday, after which the Elysee Palace said they had agreed “on the urgency of a ceasefire.”
And there was a startling moment in the Oval Office on Tuesday when Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, after praising Western unity in Ukraine and condemning the Russian invasion, told Biden in front of the cameras:
“I have to tell you that now in Italy and in Europe, people want to end … these massacres, this violence, this carnage that is happening. And people are thinking about what we can do to bring peace.
“At least they want to think about the possibility of concluding a ceasefire and resuming some credible negotiations. This is the situation at the moment. I think we need to think deeply about how to deal with this. “
His comments reflect growing nervousness that without any outside interference, Putin could be pushed into the corner that Kennedy spoke of in a speech at the American University in June 1963.
Months earlier, as the world held its breath in fear of nuclear war, Kennedy paved the way for Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to step down without losing face in their opposition to Cuba.
Six decades later, Putin may need some kind of adjustment, no matter how painful.
Add Comment