Derek H. Burney: Putin’s reckless nuclear threats a danger to us all

The world is becoming increasingly dangerous, beginning with escalating tensions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As the Ukrainians slowly but steadily regain territory that was initially lost to Russia, Vladimir Putin is becoming more desperate and, worryingly, more reckless. His call for upwards of 300,000 reservists to bolster forces occupying Ukraine prompted protests across Russia and sent thousands of young conscripts racing to a dwindling number of open border crossings to escape the draft. A frustrated Putin then signalled that he might resort to nuclear weapons to turn the tide in his favour, emphasizing, “This is not a bluff.”

The U.S. responded sternly, indicating, without specificity, that any use of nuclear weapons would trigger “catastrophic consequences.” But strong words are not enough. Washington should help Ukraine develop a more credible deterrent to Putin’s brinksmanship by establishing a “no-fly” zone and breaking Russia’s stranglehold on the Black Sea, even though such moves could further provoke the already rattled Russian ruler.

Making matters worse, underwater explosions have caused major leaks in Russia’s Nord Stream gas pipelines to Germany, releasing millions of cubic metres of methane into the atmosphere. These ruptures seem to have been acts of sabotage, not accidents. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has obliquely blamed Moscow, accusing Putin of weaponizing energy to further destabilize Europe just before winter.

Putin is clearly trying to undermine NATO unity over the war in Ukraine. U.S. polls already indicate that support for America’s substantial military and financial assistance to the war is flagging. Democracies do tend to flinch when proxy wars seem inconclusive.

Compounding the tensions, Putin conducted sham referenda under the barrels of guns in four territories of east and southern Ukraine, then illegally annexed the territories into Russia. Anne Applebaum, writing in The Atlantic, aptly described the annexations as “a declaration of war against the democratic world, a statement of contempt for democracy itself.”

Putin is clearly trying to undermine NATO unity

When the UN Security Council denounced these annexations as flouting basic United Nations principles, Russia smugly vetoed the resolution. Showing similar disdain for fundamental UN tenets, China, India and Brazil shamefully abstained, actions by prominent UN members that make the organization a feckless farce rather than a force for peace.

Meanwhile, China continues to pose a daunting threat to Taiwan, resorting to aggressive nationalism to offset a spate of domestic challenges — slower growth, soaring housing prices and increasing outbreaks of COVID. President Joe Biden’s explicit statement that the U.S. would commit troops to defend Taiwan was seen as yet another gaffe that officials endeavoured to walk back. The U.S.’s treaty obligations are only to “help” Taiwan in the event of an incursion by China. The Chinese may have reason to be confused about U.S. intentions, but they are not likely to be concerned, especially given the fractious nature of American politics. They undoubtedly see the Biden administration as unpopular at home and irresolute internationally.

Then there are the chronic disrupters of global stability — North Korea and Iran. Having shared the world limelight sporadically but ineffectively with Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un is again doing what he usually does to get attention — lobbing missiles into the Japan Sea, this time just before a visit to South Korea by U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris — and confirming publicly that North Korea will never give up its nuclear arsenal.

1. Derek H. Burney: Our failed COVID response

2. Derek H. Burney: Prepare for American politics to get even uglier

After mistakenly touting the “very important U.S. alliance with the Republic of North Korea” during a visit to the DMZ, Harris went on to say that the U.S. commitment to the defence of South Korea was “iron clad.” Her confusion could hardly be reassuring to Seoul and may have baffled Pyongyang as well.

Then there is Iran, perhaps the most provocative of all outliers on the global stage. While continuing its disruptive antics in the region — most recently drone attacks against Kurds in Northern Iraq — and with negotiations to reinstate the U.S. into the nuclear agreement seemingly stalled, the Islamic regime faces an internal crisis of legitimacy. When 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in prison after being arrested by Iran’s religious police for wearing an improperly tied hijab, there was widespread outrage that spread to more than 80 Iranian cities. The protests have called for the abolition of the religious police and have pointedly attacked Iran’s clerical establishment — the most serious challenge to the theocratic regime since the Green Movement protests in 2009. But the regime is countering with all the coercive power at its disposal.

The West’s response has been muted. What are our leaders afraid of? The Iranian regime faces serious challenges — growing frustration over social restrictions, anger over economic collapse and mismanagement, and more intense anger at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his clerical cronies who have wantonly disregarded the needs of their people while systematically feathering their own nests.

What are our leaders afraid of?

Khamenei is now the longest ruling leader in the Middle East. His health is uncertain and the opaque succession process in Iran is another source of instability. While his second eldest son, Mojtaba, is one possibility, many Iranians regard the notion of inherited rule as another betrayal of the revolution.

Should Khamenei die while Iran is embroiled in major street protests, the challenge to rigid clerical rule could intensify. It is no time to be considering rewards of billions of dollars to Iran in exchange for a flaccid agreement purporting to restrain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions — a commitment that will not be worth the paper it is printed on.

The last western leader to confront successfully crises of today’s magnitude was George H.W. Bush who, with staunch support from such allies as Canada’s Brian Mulroney, Germany’s Helmut Kohl and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, assembled a coalition to evict Iraq from Kuwait. Working sensitively but firmly with Mikhail Gorbachev, he adroitly managed, again with key allies, the peaceful unification of Germany and eventually the dismantling of the former Soviet Union without any shots being fired. If only there were leaders today with comparable strategic vision, perspicacity and steadfast resolve.

National Post

Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States of America from 1989-1993.