Joe Biden and the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction

A few nights ago, MSNBC's Chris Hayes "dusted off" the old doctrine of mutual assured destruction to explain the US/NATO's adamant refusal to engage Russia militarily in defense of Ukraine.  Here's the doctrine in its simple form, commonly assumed to govern superpowers' policies and actions during the Cold War and afterwards:

 Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.  (Wikipedia)

President Biden, as early as December 8, said he would not directly intervene in Ukraine.  Fear of provoking a wider war by sending troops was the stated reason.  By "wider war," of course, he meant a nuclear war with Russia.  Looks like good reasoning at first; no one wants a nuclear war as per MAD.  Let's not poke the bear. But let's look more closely.  There are two possible interpretations of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

 The weak interpretation says that a nuclear attack - even a limited one - by a nuclear power against another would trigger an all-out nuclear Armageddon.  The strong interpretation says that even a non-nuclear direct attack by one nuclear superpower on another would be answered by a nuclear counter-strike, resulting in the MAD scenario.  The former is regarded by most analysts as true, even self-evident.  But what about the latter interpretation?  Not so obvious.

 Suppose Russia deliberately destroyed a US submarine cruising just off the Russian coast in the Baltic Sea.  Would the US immediately launch an all-out nuclear attack on Russia.  Not likely.  Conversely, if the US deliberately destroyed a Russian submarine cruising in American waters in the Atlantic Ocean, the Russians would not likely launch a nuclear strike.  Why not?  Because of MAD, of course.  Leaders of the superpowers are not suicidal, not even Putin.

President Biden seems to be operating on the basis of the strong interpretation of MAD.  If he sends US fighter jets to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine, Putin might respond with a nuclear attack on US bases in Europe or on the US itself.  But why would he?  There is no reason to believe he is insane or suicidal.  If the US entered the war, Putin could easily take a few punches to the gut and then sue for peace on some sort of face-saving basis, thus avoiding destruction of his beloved Mother Russia.

Ok, so maybe Biden just thinks, better to be safe than sorry.  But here is the flaw in that logic.  He says, no US troops in Ukraine, but on March 1 in his State of the Union address, he said, " “The United States and our allies will defend every inch of … NATO territory with the full force of our collective power—every single inch.” That means presumably, in the event of Russian aggression against, say, Slovakia, the US will defend that country with its conventional military even at the risk of nuclear war.  Would he really?  Sure, the US is obligated to defend any member of NATO, but it has a record of breaking all kinds of "obligations" when it perceives its national interests are threatened.  But If Biden believes in the strong version of MAD, he should not rally to the defense of Slovakia, despite the NATO commitment, for the same reason he gives for refusing to directly engage Russia in Ukraine - the danger of provoking a nuclear war.  

Do I think Biden would not move to defend Slovakia or any other member of NATO if attacked by Russia?  No, he would do it, not because it's a "sacred obligation," but because his stated fear of a "wider [nuclear] war" is bullshit.  He doesn't really believe the strong version of MAD.  He has simply decided Ukraine is expendable (green light for Putin), because direct involvement would have negative political consequences for him and the Democratic Party at home, e.g. soaring gas prices, hyperinflation, bad pr in an election year.  Biden has drawn his red line around the NATO countries bordering on Russia and is willing to let the chips fall where they may in Ukraine in the hope that non-direct assistance by NATO countries will be good enough to save Ukraine and achieve US policy goals.*

My point is, if Biden is willing to risk nuclear war (hardly likely as I argue above) in defense of a NATO country, why not risk** it in the case of Ukraine, which is a NATO country in all but name?  Imagine the suffering that might have been prevented if he had been so willing.

Putin continues to surprise.  There is fear now that he will order the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, as he did in Syria.  Will Biden continue to stand by and let that happen or will he redraw his red lines?  Hey, we're talking about people "with fair hair and blue eyes" here. (Go ahead, call me cynical.)

____________

* For a discussion of what those goals are, see my post titled "America's Proxy War in Ukraine."

** Very low risk.  If Biden had acted during the full year of the Russian build-up of forces to mobilize NATO forces on the southern and western borders of Ukraine and dared Putin to invade, this war would never have happened.