endstates and priorities

talking with Russia

We are preoccupied, whether we realise it, with the impending domestic election results because most of us see those results as potentially so significant for us and for the world. (Perhaps I am more preoccupied than others but I do think it a pretty generalised phenomenon) Yet I was surprised not to see more commentary about Special Advisor to the President, aka the national security advisor, Jake Sullivan meeting with Russian officials regarding war in Europe (Vivian Salama and Michael Gordon, 'Senior White House Official Involved in Undisclosed Talks with Top Putin Aides', 7 November 2022). I thought, even with the election pending, we would hear more hue and cry as the national sentiments on the topic remain pretty firmly opposed to seeing Putin’s government as valid interlocutors.

Yet I am not surprised at all by this turn towards discussion. The overwhelming focus of U.S. and international goal for many has been to penalise Putin for his invasion of a sovereign neighbour. This violated the United Nations Charter. Most advocates of returning Ukraine to its pre-conflict configuration would like to see Putin in prison rather than in the Kremlin. The idea another leader could violate the international borders by invading a neighbour with hundreds of thousands of troops and various weaponry is repugnant after World War II, although many states in the formerly colonised portions of the world have shown more reluctance to condemn Russian behaviour since these former colonies suffered similar violations of sovereignty over their history. .

U.S. official anger regarding the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukrainians led to the desired outcome of returning fully those territories to the status quo ante of Kiev’s control. The Biden White House was, however, focusing on an additional goal beyond returning Ukraine’s control over its erstwhile territory as most public commentators and citizens have done for nearly nine months.

Jake Sullivan’s talks with the Russians remind us of that other goal. President Vladimir Putin’s repeated threats since February to use some part of his nuclear arsenal if the West took undesirable actions are chilling and plausible. Even tactical nuclear devices would devastate not only those hit in Ukraine but also those in Russia affected by western retaliation, a response extremely likely to occur. Russia’s use of nuclear weapons would be dramatic and norm-shattering, jettisoning the principle of non-use of nuclear weapons. That bedrock principle of the modern era has failed only twice in world history when President Harry S. Truman ordered the detonation of two atomic weapons three days apart in August 1945 to inflict sufficient pain on Imperial Japan to end World War II. At no other juncture has any regime used one of these weapons in conflict and few people alive today remember the horror those two bombs wrought.

Sullivan’s discussions must have reminded his Russian counterparts of the crucial nature of the non-use of these weapons as a true bedrock of the international system since their creation in 1945. Apparently the Biden regime felt the need for another intermediary at the working level to repeat the revulsion President Joe Biden himself has noted in commenting on Putin’s threats. Conversations between the National Security Advisor directly, if quietly, with his counterparts working directly for the Russian leader are a necessary caution from Washington to Moscow of the serious nature of this potential norm-breaking. Biden’s desired endstate of preventing anyone’s use of nuclear weapons has been central for the global community over the past seventy-seven years and is STILL a bedrock concern for the United States even if it means senior White House officials engaging with their odious counterparts carrying out a devastating campaign against Ukraine.

In national security strategy, the two most fundamental interests for every single U.S. administration for decades have been protecting the physical security of its citizens and enhancing for the prosperity which allows those citizens to thrive. Increasingly many in the the United States also add the idea of protecting our values, although the fraying nature of the society makes that a bit fuzzier than it might have been two generations past. Talking with an authoritarian Russian government is certainly not pleasant but is vital on this point.

An enduring endstate—or ‘what does the world look like? question—for generations remains assuring condition where nuclear weapons are not used in warfare as Putin threatens repeatedly to use them. We also often refuse speak with other governments publicly for fear those governments will interpret discussions as support for actions we abhor as true with Putin’s attack on Ukraine. The Biden administration made clear with Sullivan’s dialogue with Putin’s advisors that preventing Russian use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine is a higher priority than perhaps many in the United States realised versus rejecting Putin as a ruler who engages in legitimate actions.

I am comfortable that is a worthy endstate to pursue as we also support Ukraine’s efforts to oust the invaders. FIN