How To Approach Putin As A Hostage Taker

Last week, this blog described part of what Putin has done with his invasion of the Ukraine was using the whole world as a hostage (click here for last week's blog article ). He did that by implying a possible use of nuclear weapons on anyone helping the Ukraine by putting his nuclear forces on high alert. 

Last week's article went on to discuss the growing lack of self-restraint that we see in the world today along with the questioning of our government's knowledge of Putin's mental state. I mention all of these things because they should play a role in how the world respond to Putin but seems to be significantly absent.

Fortunately, President Biden has directed aid to the Ukraine without making probable direct confrontations between  the U.S. and Russian forces. In fact the same could be said for all NATO forces. But despite the caution exercised, I have fears of a nuclear exchange occurring. And like the old commercial for Lays Potato Chips, my fear is that once nuclear weapons are used, leaders will not be satisfied with just one nuclear exchange. That fear caused me to watch the British version of the American movie The Day After (click here for a brief description ) called Threads (click here for a brief description ). I picked the movie Threads because I could watch it for free. In that movie, what started as a confrontation between Soviet and American forces in Iran over oil led to a limited nuclear exchange and that exchange led to other exchanges until there was a full scale nuclear war. 

In any event, despite the wisdom of lowering the probability of direct confrontation between American or even NATO forces with those of Russia, we need to further revise our current approach to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. And the reason for that is precisely because of what was written last week: Putin has made the whole world his hostage. And thus, the world's leaders should include hostage negotiation tactics and strategies in its approach to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. It's not that the world's approach to Putin  should be reduced to that of some kind of hostage negotiation. But it is that hostage negotiation approaches should be a major part of how the world's leaders approach him.

Having said that, we should realize that calling Putin a war criminal, though true, doesn't help. It doesn't help because for America to complain about other nations committing war crimes and breaking International Law is like the pot calling the kettle black. For though we Americans like to tell ourselves that we, unlike many other nations, practice the Rule of Law, the fact is that it is the nations with the strongest militaries that try to enforce the Rule of Law on the rest of the world while they themselves practice the Rule of Force. Thus, the hypocrisy of nations like America accusing Putin of war crimes and not abiding by the Rule of Law can only unnecessarily irritate the hostage taker, Putin, and that is not what one should want to do when engaging in hostage negotiations.

If we didn't live in the nuclear age, we could better afford to use our military to stop the Russian invasion even though it still might not be the wisest choice. But we live in the nuclear age. And our top priority right now must be to avoid a nuclear exchange. That doesn't mean that we should sit idly by while a tyrant with imperial dreams dancing in his head has his way with nations that he feels entitled to invade. But it does mean that we need, along with providing support for the Ukraine and some sanctions that target Russia, constant communication between Western leaders and Putin. We need open lines of communication between all of those leaders. We also need to employ the services of leaders of those nations that either continue to choose to business with Russia or those who side with Russia, none of whom want to see a nuclear exchange. It is the leaders of those nations who can provide a reality check for Putin should he be considering using nuclear weapons at all during the invasion of the Ukraine.

Perhaps, the worst approach is to make Putin seem like the target. What Biden said about how Putin should not be the leader of Russia had already been said in the economic sanctions that have been applied against Russia. For it seems that the replacing of Putin as the leader of Russia is a strategic goal  at least for Biden. Here we should note that we should not feel safe from a nuclear war because we are employing  economic sanctions rather than using military confrontation. Why? WW II, especially its European theater, should provide a sufficient reason not to. That is because wars have started over economic sanctions. Yes, we should use some economic sanctions; but we can go too far with them.

Despite the fact that Putin doesn't deserve to be a leader, he should not be the target of our actions. Rather, the invasion of the Ukraine itself should be. And we need to keep in mind that what we absolutely cannot afford to have is even the possibility of a nuclear exchange over the invasion. Yes, it would be preferable for Putin to get what he deserves. But again, the Rule of Law is applied only to the weak, not the strong. And that is our reality in the nuclear age.

We Are All Hostages In Putin's War

 The moment that Putin responded to the West's support for the Ukraine because of Russia's invasion by putting his nuclear forces on high alert, he implied that he would use nuclear weapons on anyone who would help the Ukraine too much. And with that implied threat, Putin was not just threatening other nations from interfering with his goal, he made us all, which is everyone in the whole world, hostages.

The definition of a hostage is below (click here for the source)

someone who is taken as a prisoner by an enemy in order to force the other people involved to do what the enemy wants

It is true that we have not been physically taken prisoner and held against our will. But in this age of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, one doesn't have to be taken prisoner to qualify as a hostage or be used as a shield by those who are trying to avoid resistance and/or escape the just consequences of their actions. Putin has implied that he will use nuclear weapons if the West tries too hard to rescue the Ukraine. And we know that if he does use nuclear weapons, there will be a response with nuclear weapons. And then where that ends, nobody knows. But once the use of nuclear weapons have been used on a nuclear power, even if what is first used is a low-yield tactical weapon, the risk for a full scale nuclear war has sharply and dramatically increased.

So all of us might be killed if the world does too much to help the Ukraine fend off Russia's invasion. But nobody knows just what that too much is. Is Putin bluffing? We don't know. But if he isn't bluffing, then we have an extremely tough balance to meet. For if he isn't bluffing, then questions must be raised about his mental health and state of mind. He does seem to be returning Russia back to the days of Stalin when calling Russians who oppose the war, 'traitors.' And when we combine that with the Ukrainian civilian targets and nuclear power plants having already been hit, one wonders about Putin's ability to exercise self-restraint in the face of an effective resistance to his invasion.

Putin's actions and rhetoric helps make it seem that we have just entered an age where there is a marked loss in people's ability to exercise self-restraint. We certainly saw the loss in people's self-restraint during the whole Trump Presidency. And a large part of that was the lack of adequate self-restraint exercised by Trump himself. The willingness of people to eagerly embrace conspiracy theories regarding Covid and the vaccines also demonstrated a decrease in the exercise of self-restraint by people. But there has been even a sharper global increase in the lack of self-restraint ever since the world has been emerging from the pandemic. And the loss of self-restraint is just what we don't need in this nuclear age.

And so we need to consider Putin's possible mental state and his using the world as a hostage in responding to his invasion. That we should support the Ukraine fend off the revolution and put sanctions on Russia that would persuade its influencers to get Putin to relent. But perhaps our strategic response to him should include a hostage negotiation perspective.

Finally, as Putin embarks on a path so many have tread before him with his invasion of the Ukraine, he will, if he hasn't already, come to a fork in the road where he must choose between military defeat or moral suicide. And in a nuclear age, his choosing of the latter option could take the whole world down with him.

Putin Must Think That The World Is Unfair. And He Is right

 Put yourself in Putin's shoes before rightfully condemning his invasion of the Ukraine. If he invades a neighboring nation that is flirting with joining an adversarial nuclear power, almost the whole world unites against him. But let a superpower invade a nation thousands of miles away for questionable reasons, and hardly a word is said and no economic actions are taken against that invading nation. In fact, that hypothetical invading nation looked at the placement of ballistic missiles on its border as provocative while it had already done the same to its arch rival. And had Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War, that invading nation would have probably invaded Mexico to take control without a word of protest from the rest of the world.

Yes, compared to how the world treats the US for its interventions and invasions, how it is now responding to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine shows the double standard being followed by the West and most of the rest of the world.

We an also make a similar comparison between Russia and Israel even though more is said in protest against some of Israel's actions. But hardly anything is done about its plethora of violations of UN Resolutions and its invasions of Lebanon and Gaza as well as its confiscation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and past confiscation of land from Syria.

Yes, it has been said that Putin wants to restore Russia to its previous superpower status and be on par  with the US. Though its means of reaching that goal are horribly immoral, its actions in the Ukraine can find parallels in many of American foreign policies since the end of WW II. Only a case can be made that American policies have been even more immoral since it has intervened in or invaded nations thousands of miles from its border.

Much of the world has been unfair to Russia over its invasion of the Ukraine in a certain sense. It isn't in the sense that the world has been wrong in sanctioning Russia for its invasion. Rather, it is because it applies a double standard. The world is lenient toward America's atrocities while harshly condemning and reacting to Russia for its atrocities. And the disparity here isn't because America is wearing the white hat while Russia is wearing the black hat. After all, America has also supported more than its fair share of tyrannical dictators sometimes even replacing democracies with the rule of such dictators.

How can this unfairness be rectified? It cannot be rectified in turning a blind eye to Russia's sins. Rather it can be rectified in responding to America's interventions and invasions in the same way as it is responding to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. And in that way, perhaps if Russia or some other emerged superpower wants to keep up with the US, it will have to keep up with a different future America than what it was in the past.

Why Putin Invaded The Ukraine

 Why did Putin order Russian troops to invade the Ukraine? No one knows for sure, or no one knows completely to be more accurate. Even with the latest  conditions for a cessation in Russian hostilities (click here for an article on those conditions), no one knows completely why Russia invaded the Ukraine. Do these conditions reflect a change in what Putin initially wanted to do because of the consequences of his actions or do those conditions provide evidence for determining Putin's initial reasons for why he ordered the invasion of the Ukraine? We can't know for sure.

But just because we can't know completely, doesn't mean that we cannot know in part. In an insightful article by Joseph Mussomeli which was posted in the Imaginative Conservative blog (click here for the article),  Mussomeli gives a more balanced view of the context of the invasion than usually appears in religiously conservative Christian sources. One of the key factors he points to is the eastward expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. This is an important factor seeing Russia's history and that NATO is seen as an adversarial nuclear power. In addition, one of the four conditions that Russia has laid out for an end to hostilities is that the Ukraine commits itself to neutrality, this includes that it will not house NATO missiles unlike Poland and Romania have already done.

One of the reasons why we cannot know completely why Russia invaded the Ukraine is because we simply don't have enough valid information on Putin's mental and physical health. There are reports that Putin might be suffering from a neurological condition that could include the beginning signs of dementia. And there have been questions raised about the Putin's isolation due to the pandemic that also cause one to question his mental state.

There has also been talk of Putin wanting to restore the Russian Empire that existed prior to the formation of the Soviet Union. In addition, there are the ethnic and religious ties that connect the Russia  and the Ukraine to each other.

And so the recent news of the conditions presented by Russia for an end to hostilities muddies the waters as to why Putin had the Ukraine invaded.

In contrast to the article recommended earlier, there is a factor that has not been getting much press. It is a factor that plays a prominent role for decisions being made by all sides both before and during the invasion. That factor is a common human factor especially among traditionalists from all ideologies and nations as well as among old people and it plays more than just a cameo role in the conflict. That factor is the tendency for us to rely too heavily on the past when interpreting and responding to the present.

That factor was significantly present in NATO's decisions to break an understanding between Bush I and Gorbachev regarding the reunion of the then East and West Germany. That understanding was that NATO would not move east of Germany in terms of its member nations. However, unless the Ukraine housed missiles and other strategic military bases, such a membership would not pose any threat to Russia. 

But Russia's past may, and very understandably so, view any ties between the Ukraine and NATO as a threat. Perhaps that is because Russia's history includes being invaded by the West several times. And what might also add to that perception is that there are already two nations that share borders with Russia already house NATO missile bases. This hearkens back to the days leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis when the US place nuclear armed ballistic missiles in Turkey, which shares a border with Russia.

Here we should note that NATO's move east after the fall of the Iron Curtain continued a past US strategy of how to treat a adversarial super power--because of its nuclear weapons, Russia never stopped being a superpower--by surrounding it with military bases. Here, China could easily voice the same complaint that Russia has regarding being surrounded by US military bases. 

Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and its harsh suppression of dissenting voices within reminds one of its tyrannical authoritarian approach used by the former Soviet Union. Revolts in its satellite states we quickly and harshly smashed by the Red Army rolling in with its tanks and troops. Then we have arrests of many Russians who are protesting the invasion. Of course, the worst of those times were during Stalin's reign of atrocities and terror.

With both sides using playbooks from the past, a then, and still now, ignored contribution from the past is speaking to us ever more loudly once Putin threatened to possibly resort to using nuclear weapons on those who interfered too much (click here for the source). 

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.

 The abolition of war will demand distasteful limitations of national sovereignty.

One can only hope that the recent Russian proposal, though wholly inadequate, has slowed down our pace from a canter to a stroll toward the precipice. But what would be tragically ironic for the rest of the world is if those first world nations that pride themselves on their intellectual and moral superiority over the rest of the world could not only not work together to solve their grievances, but were so opposed and antagonistic toward each other that they became the cause of the demise of themselves the rest of the world whom they consider to be their inferiors.

Regardless of how much of evolution we religiously conservative Christians we wish to oppose, evolution teaches us one lesson that we must take to heart which applies to the use of war to resolve our differences. That survival in an ever changing world depends on one's ability to change with the world. But that change must not be so drastic that we lose our connection to the wisdom that would still serve us today. Perhaps our nuclear arsenals can teach us what our morals should have taught us centuries ago. That war is wholly intolerable and often puts us in the position of choosing between military defeat or moral suicide. Only now, the continued reliance on war in a world where, because of technology, the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable can only present one option: the annihilation of all people.

Finally, the world's response to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine has been inspiring. From its opposition to the invasion to warm acceptance of Ukrainian refugees gives one hope for mankind's survival. 

But that hope is quickly tempered by the selectivity of both responses employed by the world generally and the Ukraine's neighbor in particular. For the world has spoken almost with one voice against the invasion. But the world does not do that when Israel invades Lebanon or the Gaza strip or when Israel continues to take land away from the Palestinians because of Israel's historic claims to the land. Nor does the world speak in almost unison when the US invades or intervenes in nations in order to replace their governments with one that bends to the will of US leaders. Those invasions and interventions have created more destruction and refugees than the Russian invasion of the Ukraine has. 

And speaking of refugees, we should note that the Ukraine's neighbors, while welcoming Ukrainian refugees with open arms, close their border to those non-whites coming from Syria and other Middle East nations as well as those coming from Africa. These other refugees too have suffered greatly just as the Ukrainian refugees have. And all too often our desire to maintain enough, whatever that is, ties to the past lead us to deny the humanitarian needs, and thus the humanity, of those from other races and cultures.

Just perhaps if the world has not been so selective in how it opposes war and violence, Putin would not thought it was necessary or reasonable to invade the Ukraine as a way of proving himself and his nation.