Post-Ed editor Kelly Jane Torrance spoke to former NATO Commander-in-Chief Wesley Clark by telephone on Wednesday. These are excerpts from their conversations.
Question: What action could the United States take beyond the current sanctions that would help protect Ukraine?
A: The most important move now is for the president to declare Vladimir Putin a war criminal. Really. This gives a huge diplomatic lever and a greater incentive to support the campaign.
Question: Does Putin really care if the president or international bodies declare him a war criminal?
A: First, it can gather European support even more – all European governments are wary of the concept of war crimes. Second, he strengthens Ukraine by supporting President Zelensky. And third, if it passes, it means the end of Putin as world leader, no matter how it turns out. This is a very powerful move. Putin really doesn’t care about money. He really cares about his reputation – as does China.
Question: NATO seems to be erasing slightly – they say that members, like Poland, cannot even fly fighter jets to Ukraine through NATO airspace.
A: This is wrong. This is being guided by the United States, and I would call on the United States to reconsider this. Russia does not own Ukraine’s borders. They belong to Ukraine. Ukraine is a nation under threat. And according to the UN Charter, nations have the right to ask for help in self-defense.
How would the Russians know that a fighter jet had been transferred using NATO airspace? How do they know he didn’t fly over the Black Sea? How do they know that he did not come over Belarus?
You see, for 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States acted as a world superpower. Americans today do not remember the stress and hardships of the Cold War era. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said, this is the new norm. We are not fighting against Iraq. We are not in Afghanistan. We are against another almost comparable competitor who has nuclear weapons. We need to learn and understand how to deal with such situations. This will not be the last.
Q: Are you advocating a no-fly zone?
A: Absolutely. The airspace belongs to Ukraine. If they ask for help, why can’t we fly there? Say, oh, it’s because of the Russians, they can come and challenge it. This is the problem of the Russians. They will be shot. Okay, then what? Putin says he will use nuclear weapons. If we step away from this challenge, if we don’t face it, it’s like a two-pair poker bluff for incredibly high stakes.
Get the latest updates in the Russia-Ukraine conflict with a direct coverage of The Post.
Question: Would Putin use nuclear weapons?
A: If he lost, I think he could. And if we think there’s a chance that someone might use a nuclear weapon against us, I guess we just have to abandon the concept of expanded deterrence. Why would we want to defend Estonia if Putin could want to use nuclear weapons? Is Estonia worth it? You say it’s NATO, but the cold, hard reality is that Putin can move to Estonia and take control before we can decide what to do. Or Taiwan – what if China says: If you come to Taiwan again, we will use nuclear weapons. The Chinese have a lot of people, they have a lot of nuclear weapons. What if North Korea says: Conduct another exercise, we will use nuclear weapons. Say oh, we will erase you. No, you will not erase us, we can attack the United States – now. What if Iran says so? That is the answer. It was easy to be the world’s superpower when we went against Libya, Iraq and Syria. The United States must recalibrate its understanding, leadership, and processes to work in this new field, or we will lose the rules-based international system we are proud to have created since World War II, which we created using the concept of expanded deterrence.
Question: Is there anything we can do, at least say, to degrade Russia’s capabilities if they continue to escalate and continue to kill civilians?
A: We could certainly use cyberspace. Here is the problem. Anything you do that has an effect on Russian operations will cross Mr Putin’s so-called red line. Here’s the thing. Ukraine is the toughest opponent to face, the toughest one, say, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. If you can’t find a way to deal with his threats now, you need to find a way to deal with them later. And not only from Putin, but also from North Korea, Iran and China. Putin’s challenge is a challenge to the American doctrine of expanded deterrence. During the Cold War, questions were always asked. Would the United States really sacrifice and, say, risk New York to protect Hamburg, Germany, from Russian attack? That was the question. We knew we did not have the strength to stop a Russian attack on NATO. But we support the credibility of our doctrine of first-hand use by deploying American troops and having a number of nuclear options, from tactical through theater to strategic until then. In essence, we got rid of this set of options, which was important for linking US commitments to NATO, the strategic deterrence of the United States. Now Putin has found a loophole in American doctrine.
Q: Advocating a no-fly zone sounds like you think we should be prepared to risk some escalation.
A: I think I should. We need to think about our situation and measure what actions we can take against what risks they take, both in the immediate and long term.
Question: The final question is: Does the West stand aside and watch innocent people being killed?
A: I think this is the mystery that the administration is facing. What can we do without provoking a red line? And the answer to that is: It doesn’t just depend on us. It depends on Putin. I would say it is more than a little unpredictable.