FAfter the defeat of its war against Ukraine, Russia renews its threats against the West.

In response to the Russian invasion, Sweden and Finland are very likely to apply for NATO membership. Both countries will soon reach NATO’s defense spending target of 2% of GDP (unlike many current NATO members), and Finland, in particular, has a warrior culture that would significantly strengthen the posture. NATO deterrent. But Russia is not happy with their imminent joining of the alliance. Moscow warns that joining NATO will lead to the deployment of nuclear weapons by the Kremlin in its enclave of Kaliningrad.

It is a threat that deserves to be rejected.

On the one hand, Russia already has nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Secondly, if Russian President Vladimir Putin really wanted to avoid NATO enlargement (which he complained about before invading Ukraine), maybe he shouldn’t have started the biggest war in Europe since the end of World War II?

It was just the first Russian scramble for the ramparts of climbing this week.

As the Washington Post
reports, Russia has sent an official diplomatic demarche (position message) to the United States regarding the continued supply of weapons from the West to Ukraine. The move warned the United States not to deliver to Ukraine “the most sensitive” weapons, such as multiple rocket launcher systems. This warning confirms my concern that the reason the US is delivering cannon artillery instead of MLRS units is because they fear Russian escalation.

Of course, on paper, the Biden administration’s strategy of cautious support for Ukraine makes sense. Very few people want the bloodshed in Ukraine to spill over to neighboring NATO states. Very few people want a Third World War in Europe, in which the Americans again have to play an outsized role. (Largely, by the way, because major Western powers such as France, Germany, and Italy have consistently failed to bear their fair share of defensive burdens. Why, for example, does the US Air Force doing almost all the resupply of NATO air patrols near Ukraine?) Very few people want an escalation that risks a nuclear exchange.

While I respect these concerns, I believe they are fundamentally wrong. Biden shouldn’t just keep supplying weapons to Ukraine — he should direct his national security council to expand those supplies at scale and to systems, including those Russia has warned against, and to stop delaying the delivery of supplies already promised.

The top line is double.

First, Ukraine is a sovereign democracy that resists the efforts of a corrupt regime to destroy its state and subjugate its people. American values ​​and the defense of the democratic international order require Ukraine’s support. China watches as it ponders its own invasion of Taiwan and subjugation of the Indo-Pacific. Since when has the United States sacrificed its vital interests and sacred values ​​on the altar of a threatening foreign power?

Second, Russia’s escalation threats are rooted in desperation rather than credible intent. Russia’s combat performance in Ukraine will only have strengthened NATO’s relative deterrent power in the eyes of the Russian military. Russia is unlikely to launch even a limited strike against a NATO member. Why?

Because, if the American resolve holds, Putin knows he cannot dominate the climbing curve. At a minimum, any limited Russian attack on NATO would solidify the world in favor of much tougher sanctions on Russia. Even China would likely abandon Russia then, fearing irreparable damage to its core foreign policy concern: expanding its influence in Europe at America’s expense. Putin and his senior sidekick Nikolai Patrushev might be ideologues devoted to a grand imperial destiny, but many senior figures in the security services and military prefer relative stability and the preservation of their corrupt personal wealth. Likewise, the oligarchs, the ultimate lungs of the Kremlin’s patronage networks, do not want a war that further deprives access to Western luxury.

Moreover, the Russian leader’s growing outbursts and domestic crackdowns are not a testament to his confidence, but to his increasingly exposed insecurities. And relevant to this most important level of conflict, nuclear war, Putin is neither mad nor irrational. While Russia has developed powerful strategic weapons, most of its nuclear forces are aging and held at poor readiness.

A nuclear war with the West would be catastrophic for all parties, including the United States, and should be avoided whenever possible. Yet Russia, not the United States, would face annihilation as a state if a nuclear war occurred. Before they could launch their weapons, most Russian ballistic missile submarines would be sunk by American or British attack submarines, and many Russian bombers would be destroyed. Russian ground-based missiles would wreak havoc on Washington, DC and other key targets, but I understand that many of these missiles lack fuel and reliability (due to partial dismantling by corrupt military officers). Russian commanders know all this. This is why most Western intelligence officials I have spoken with believe they would remove Putin from power if he ordered a unilateral nuclear strike.

In other words, Biden should take a stand for what is both morally right and in America’s demanding national interest. The democratic international order led by the United States after World War II is flawed. It allowed the free-riding of the major European powers. Trade agreements have benefited most people, but have also impoverished too many. Nevertheless, this international order has also brought unprecedented freedom and prosperity to Americans and the peoples of the world. Russia seeks to destroy this order in Ukraine.

The President of the United States should not bend the knee to Putin’s aggressive threats.