But this is just theory? America’s nuclear arsenal remains large, reductions mean little? And America would never really use nuclear missiles, anyway? In practice, that makes sense. However, theory and perception matter too, especially in the world of geopolitics and when dealing with dictators like Putin. They see two types of people in the world: strong and weak. Projecting weakness emboldens them.
History bears this out. During the Cold War, perception was reality. Nuclear weapons meant strength. It mattered whether you had 1,000 or 10,000 nuclear warheads. Logically, it may not, but the human psyche doesn’t always think logically. Moreover, cultural differences matter. To the twenty-first-century American, no difference exists between 1,000 and 10,000 nuclear bombs, but Putin is not a twenty-first-century American. He is the product of a vastly different cultural system, Cold War Russia.
A second example of the United States projecting weakness came in the wake of Vietnam when America embarked on more conciliatory policies and arms control agreements with the Soviets. Detente culminated in the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I and SALT II). For the first time in Cold War history, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to limit their nuclear arsenals. Months later, the Soviets reacted by invading Afghanistan. The fact that the United States still had a large nuclear arsenal meant nothing. Perceptions of weakness emboldened the Soviets.
And there is a third example. In 2010, the Obama administration negotiated a new START with Putin. Obama insisted: “Today, we’ve taken another step forward by — in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children.” During the 2012 presidential debate, presidential candidate Mitt Romney chided Obama for his collaboration with Putin, insisting Russia posed the greatest geopolitical threat to America. Defending himself, Obama quipped, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” What happened two years later was no joking matter: Russia annexed Crimea. Again, America seemingly reducing its nuclear arsenal emboldened the Russians.
What about when the United States has shown strength?
During the Cold War, the United States earned it best results regarding Soviet behavior after reconstructing her armed forces, including her nuclear arsenal. Flexing American muscle, President Reagan doubled American military spending between 1981 and 1985. The Pentagon modernized its nuclear force with the new intercontinental ballistic missiles and the B-1B bomber. The Soviets subsequently cowered. In the mid-80s, they elected a reform-minded communist leader, Michael Gorbachev, who began liberalizing the Soviet system. Semblances of democracy emerged. Soviet troops even left foreign countries. The Soviet Union shrank, then vanished. The Cold War ended.
When working with others like Putin, it must be recognized that their way of seeing the world may be different. Cultural differences and individual psychologies mean two people can interpret the same thing differently. It may seem that reducing nuclear weapons moves us toward peace, but dictators like Putin sense weakness and pounce.
David Byrne earned his Ph.D. in history from Claremont Graduate University with a specialization in Soviet history. He has authored several peer-reviewed articles and one book.
Make no mistake..Putin and Putinistas love Biden/Obama.
As much as I’d enjoy pinning the decision to invade Ukraine on Obama and Co., the invasion is all on Putin. Obama has very little control over movements of Russian troops and armaments into neighborhing countries.
If the Ukes had simply joined NATO they would not be invaded today.
If Taiwan had declared independence from China, they will not be invaded [as a renegade province, even the US calls it “one China”] tomorrow.
The reality is that “the Soviet Union” was culturally Imperial Russia clothed in the political clothes of international Communism, and that attitude (imperial attitude) remains the driving domestic force toward foreign policy under the Putin controlled mobocracy (KGB + Russian mobsters and mob connected oligarchs, working together as a mob run state).
The reality in China is no different. Like Russia they are not a politically modern country but one trying to assume the imperial mantle of the Chinese emperors of old. Their claims in Asia are not part of “nationalism” just Chinese imperialism.
Blame Russia.
Obama/resident, give up YOUR NUKES and we’ll protect you! SUCKERS!!!!!
This guy is WAY off.
Ukraine had a moderate/wishy washy President who flirted with both Putin and the west.
In 2013 he took a turn toward Putin and stopped negotiating with the west.
In early 2014, our deepstate including Obama,Biden,Kerry and McCain fomented a coup to oust the pro-Russian president. Hundreds of people died and over a thousand were injured.
Obama’s assistant Secretary of State hand picked the next President as is proved by a leaked phone call.
Immediately after the coup, Putin took the Crimea.
A mini civil war broke out in the majority Russian speaking eastern provinces who did not want to be led by a globalist government. 13,000 died.
Over the next 3 years, Biden and Kerry put their sons on the Board of Burisma. Other deepstaters also leveraged their new found connections to rape and plunder the people of Ukraine.
The US govt gave them $3 billion in loan guarantees (as famously alluded to when Biden used $1b as a bride to prevent his son from being investigated)
How much of that $3b ended up going back to the Clinton Foundation? How much ended up going to “the big guy” or other deepstate globalist war mongers?
Trump made it clear he was not going to pursue NATO expansion. He even hinted at disbanding it. That is why Putin stayed relatively quiet from 2017 to 2020.
We just gave Ukraine another $1b loan guarantee and we are restarting the talks of bringing them into NATO.
That is why Putin is doing what he is doing.