Unthinkable, irrational options for a world on the edge

As a school student in the 1980s, the prospect of a third world war, a nuclear one, was a constant concern.

In the 1980s, fear of nuclear war was pervasive. The Soviet Union, which Ronald Reagan branded an “evil empire”, had its nuclear arsenal directed at cities in the US, UK, Canada and Europe. TV, radio and newspapers described how a nuclear war might begin – by design or accident – and the terrible consequences.

As a school student in the 1980s, the prospect of a third world war was a constant concern. We learnt about mutually assured destruction, appropriately known as MAD, where both the US and the Soviet Union would deploy their nuclear weapons and destroy each other, and the world as a result.

We monitored the Doomsday Clock. We sang Sting’s single, Russians (1985), asking if the Soviet Union “love their children too”. We wrote letters to Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev urging them to avoid nuclear war. The summits between Reagan and Gorbachev in the final years of the Cold War helped to alleviate this fear.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, played out in real time on social media, radio and television, has been harrowing to watch. But the brutal assault unleashed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia has not gone to plan. He has not yet conquered Ukraine.

The resistance, led by Volodymyr Zelensky, has been courageous and inspiring.

There have been countless moments of resilience and bravery as the people of Ukraine have taken to the streets to defend their country. They want to be masters of their own destiny, not forced to live as part of an enlarged Russia or an occupied state with a compliant government. They have an ideal – freedom – for which they are prepared to die.

Russia is now a pariah state, shut off from most of the world, and enduring punishing economic sanctions. Sanctions, it has been said, are akin to a medieval city being placed under siege. Most of these sanctions will take time to fully bite and there is more that can be done, such as further restricting, or banning, gas and oil imports from Russia.

US President Ronald Reagan, right, with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, left, during welcoming ceremonies at the White House in 1987.

NATO is united in its condemnation of Russia. Non-NATO countries, such as Australia, are also arming Ukraine to fight. Putin did not anticipate this response. He thought the West was weak, disunited and leaderless. The challenge for the West is to keep tightening the screws on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. Otherwise, Putin will be emboldened to move on Georgia, Moldova or the Baltic States.

It is frightening to think what the response would have been if Donald Trump were US president. Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, said he planned to withdraw the US from NATO. Trump, who recently said Putin was a “genius” and “savvy” for invading Ukraine, withheld military assistance to Ukraine unless Zelensky did him a “favour” by investigating Biden. This led to Trump being impeached in 2019.

For those of us who remain inspired by Winston Churchill’s defiance of the Nazi war machine in World War II or John F. Kennedy’s clarion call to the next generation to defend any country threatened or subjugated by another, or more recently the coalition that George HW Bush assembled to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, not directly defending Ukraine is hard to stomach.

As a school student in the 1980s, the prospect of a third world war was a constant concern. We monitored the Doomsday Clock.

However, NATO and the US are determined this does not escalate where Putin could deploy nuclear weapons. Ukraine, of course, is not a NATO member. But it is a UN member. Ukraine is being armed to fight alone. There is rationality to this strategy, despite the calls to intervene with air strikes, a no-fly zone or even troops on the ground. It is, nevertheless, a bitter pill to swallow.

While the Asia-Pacific is different, and not directly analogous, Putin’s actions could have consequences for China’s ambitions. Defence Minister Peter Dutton said in an interview with me last year that Australia would defend Taiwan against invasion by China if the US requested our assistance. Biden has said the US would defend Taiwan. But we don’t recognise Taiwan. Yet we do recognise Ukraine. Either conflict, in defence of Taiwan or Ukraine, could involve nuclear weapons.

The fear that nuclear weapons could be deployed was thought to be limited to rogue states such as North Korea or acquired by terrorists to punish the West.

That remains a genuine horror scenario. It is, after all, what motivated the invasion of Iraq in 2003, even though Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.

But when Putin said any Western intervention to defend Ukraine would have consequences on a scale greater than ever before in human history, and put his nuclear forces on alert, the possibility of using nuclear weapons cannot be ignored. This would, of course, be catastrophic. It would likely lead to a more direct response from NATO and its allies, especially the US.

Putin could be bluffing. He must be aware of the response if he did the unthinkable.

Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It could lead to the MAD scenario long feared during the Cold War. But as Putin’s invasion plan continues to meet resistance, and could become a quagmire, and sanctions have their full effect, he could become more dangerous and desperate. The possibility of an irrational action cannot be dismissed.

So, the task for those who still adhere to the global rules-based order is to simultaneously punish those who defy it and reduce the risk of a wider and more dangerous conflict. Putin has already declared sanctions imposed by the West to be an act of war. This conflict, of which Ukraine is the opening salvo, could go on. The challenges and the difficult choices will only increase.

That great generation of Cold War leaders, including Reagan, Bush, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Brian Mulroney, Helmut Kohl, Francois Mitterrand and Bob Hawke, was alert to the threat of World War III. The key to avoiding nuclear armageddon, they thought, was to apply pressure, reduce the risk of escalation and continue dialogue.

It is a different world today. If only we had the leaders, on both sides, who looked into the abyss and stepped back from the brink.