Joe Biden is one of the few world leaders who will remember the Cuban Missile Crisis vividly. He was a student, he was almost 20 years old, when the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war. Now, as US president, Biden has half-considered, half-warned that the world is currently closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any time since the crisis that unfolded in October 1962 – exactly 60 years.
There have been rumors that Biden shouldn’t say such things. The argument is that by publicly discussing nuclear war, the American president is playing into Vladimir Putin’s hands. The Russian president and his army are in an increasingly desperate situation. Western intelligence thinks the Russians are out of ammunition and that only recently became apparent to Putin. By threatening to use nuclear weapons, Putin is using one of his remaining tools – trying to terrify Ukraine and its Western backers into concessions.
Biden, however, is not alone in speaking publicly about the nuclear threat. Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said that Putin psychologically prepares the Russian people for the use of nuclear weapons. As the Ukrainian leader said, it is “very dangerous”.
As the dangers of an escalation mount – along with the death toll – the absence of serious diplomatic efforts to end the conflict is both striking and disturbing.
For some of Ukraine’s most ardent supporters, even talk of diplomacy equates to appeasement. Their argument is that the only acceptable and realistic way to end the war is for Putin to be defeated. It’s fine as a statement of principle, but not very useful in practice.
Of course, it would be better if Russia were completely defeated and a penitent new government came to power in Moscow, committed to paying war reparations and bringing Putin to justice for war crimes. But this result, although roughly within the range of possibilities, remains a very long bet. For the foreseeable future, it is far more likely that as his options narrow, the Russian leader and his entourage will intensify further.
Russia’s options include economic pressure, indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine and sabotage of Western infrastructure. But increasingly overt nuclear threats are also likely. The actual use of tactical nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out. The frequency with which Western leaders refer to it and talk about possible responses – the latest to do so being Frenchman Emmanuel Macron – is a sign of the briefings they receive privately.
In 1962, the nuclear crisis took place against the backdrop of secret diplomacy that ultimately defused the Cuban Missile Crisis. This kind of diplomatic activity is the missing ingredient in the war in Ukraine.
The big mistake is to believe that diplomacy is an alternative to strong military support for Ukraine. On the contrary, the two approaches must go hand in hand and complement each other.
Giving the Ukrainians the military aid they need to advance on the battlefield puts them in the best possible position to secure their objectives in an eventual peace agreement. But diplomacy should not simply be postponed until some time in the future. It has to happen at the same time as the fights. And Ukrainians must be involved and consulted at every step.
Some Western military leaders are frustrated that their efforts in Ukraine are not supported by simultaneous diplomacy. As one senior military source put it: “Military action is inherently ineffective. It is only truly effective when combined with economic and diplomatic efforts. And we don’t see enough diplomacy.
While some may assume there’s more secret diplomacy going on than meets the eye, those who should know suggest there are few open channels with the Kremlin. Senior members of Biden’s team are believed to have spoken to their counterparts in Moscow. But the results were less than inspiring, with the Russian side sticking to Kremlin-approved talking points.
Third-party diplomacy could be a more fruitful route. The model here could be the agreement that was reached to allow Ukrainian grain to leave Black Sea ports, thus alleviating the global food crisis. Turkey played a crucial role in brokering these talks. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President, is not everyone’s idea of a stable broker. But he has longstanding ties to Washington, Brussels and Moscow.
The Indians are also potential interlocutors. Their failure to support resolutions condemning Russia at the UN has drawn much unfavorable commentary in the West. But that can make them credible messengers in Moscow. S Jaishankar, the Indian Foreign Minister, is also a respected operator.
In the west, some who are thinking about a possible peace agreement are setting big parameters. Russia must withdraw at least to where its forces were before the February 24 invasion. Ukraine must see its future as a viable state secured – with access to the sea, control of its own airspace and reliable security guarantees that do not depend on Russian good faith. The status of Crimea will be the most difficult issue in any negotiation. But finding creative solutions to intractable problems is what high-level diplomacy is all about. We need to see more.
