We are experiencing a historical moment in which the parties to the conflict, realising that they cannot afford to fight directly, are beginning to use hybrid instruments, proxies, and, finally, other countries as instruments. The current stage of development of the system of international relations calls into question all the conclusions that the parties came to during the nuclear deterrence period of the Cold War, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Andrey Sushentsov.
We are fortunate to live in a special historical moment — this is a time at the junction of two systems of international relations: on the one hand, we are witnessing the formation of a polycentric world order, and, on the other hand, an era that does not want to go away — the hegemony of the United States, the American “unipolar moment”. Such turning points in history are often characterised by an increased desire of politicians to experiment in the field of international relations — including extreme measures and openly adventuristic steps.
The current stage can be compared to the late 1950s — early 1960s. By that time, nuclear weapons had already been invented. The United States used a nuclear bomb for military purposes against Japan. The Soviet Union conducted nuclear tests. It became clear then (although the specific contours of the new order were not entirely clear to either Moscow or Washington) that a special system of relations between the two poles of the bipolar world, a special means of interaction between the United States and the Soviet Union, had begun to take shape. History knows several episodes when the parties considered the possibility of using nuclear weapons and the role they could play in the dynamics of the international crises of that era. In particular, such episodes included the Korean War of 1950-1953, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The latter served as an important determinant of Soviet-American relations, since during the Cuban Missile Crisis the understanding was first formed that countries possessing nuclear weapons bear a special responsibility for their use or for preventing their use. A series of these crises during the “mature” stage of the Cold War led the United States and the USSR to the realisation of the existing situation of mutual nuclear deterrence, in which there can be no winners in a nuclear war, since in the event of a nuclear strike on the enemy’s territory, a retaliatory strike with “unacceptable damage” is inevitable. This realisation was supported with serious practical steps: a series of negotiations on disarmament and the limitation of strategic offensive weapons were held, and corresponding agreements were signed.
The situation of mutual nuclear deterrence that developed between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War is an important legacy that continues to keep Moscow and Washington from engaging in direct confrontation, from direct military clashes. However, today we are experiencing a historical moment in which the parties to the conflict, realising that they cannot afford to fight directly, are beginning to use hybrid instruments, proxies, and, finally, other countries as instruments. In such hybrid conflicts, governments feel less accountable for their decisions; they lose track of what damage is considered “unacceptable” — and this significantly increases the risks of uncontrolled escalation. The current stage of development of the system of international relations calls into question all the conclusions that the parties came to during the nuclear deterrence period of the Cold War.
Today, Moscow is sending clear signals about its readiness to take decisive measures in response to the opportunistic behaviour of the United States and other Western countries. Thus, Russia has begun to revise its nuclear doctrine. In recent months, we have seen very significant military demonstrations. In particular, Russian missile carriers visited the Western Hemisphere. Russian strategic nuclear assets were sent to the coasts of Cuba and Venezuela. These manoeuvres were carried out with deliberate demonstrativeness, with the aim of emphasising the fact that the United States is not invulnerable. It is also important to keep in mind the fact that Moscow and Beijing have continued to strengthen military cooperation. This summer, Russia and China carried out joint patrols in the northern Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska. In early September, large-scale naval exercises, “Ocean-2024”, were held in the waters of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Caspian and Baltic Seas, where the Russian fleet took part together with the Chinese navy.
With each new step up the escalation ladder, tensions in relations between Russia and the West grow. The situation is becoming especially acute against the backdrop of statements by Western politicians. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has said that if the Ukrainian front collapses, NATO may be forced to directly intervene in the conflict. Crossing this “red line” could radically change the strategic situation, to the point that the conflict would reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the world as a whole. In this context, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that Russia has a wide range of tools, in addition to nuclear weapons and other military means, to protect its national interests and achieve its goals. An important dimension of the current crisis in relations between Russia and the West, in addition to the military-political sphere, is the struggle in the field of ideas regarding how the new international system will work. Indicative in this regard is the analysis of the materials of the sessions of the UN General Assembly, demonstrating that in the perception of the current crisis in the Russia-West dyad, the world majority is inclined to see the West as the initiator of this crisis. Such a perception is entirely consistent with Russia’s interests and contributes to the growth of an important resource of constructive interaction with allies and partners.
