For the first time in the nuclear era, we are dealing with the unthinkable. The leader of a superpower has gone rogue. Having miscalculated the quality of his conventional forces and the courage of a nation he tried to subjugate, he has threatened to use "all available means" togain something from his misadventure.
"I am not bluffing," said Vladimir Putin 18 days ago - and he might not be. We have watched him destroy cities in Ukraine to possess them. We know he wants Russia to be feared again.
It has been heartening to see Ukraine disregard his threat and step up its advance this week, recovering some of the territory it has lost. But with an army in retreat, a conscription drive in disarray and young Russians fleeing the country, it must be counted more likely Putin will reach for the only weapon that might still work for him.
In that event, how should democratic countries respond? The options and scenarios have been discussed and war-gamed extensively in Washington DC this week. There is no precedent to guide a response. Never before has a threat to use nuclear weapons been issued in a conventional war.
When Putin made the threat he claimed the United States had given him a precedent with the atomic bombs it used to defeat Japan in 1945. The fact he had to reach back to the dawn of the nuclear age shows he is at least aware of the enduring code he has broken.
The Cold War adversaries disagreed deeply about the way people ought to be governed but they did not disagree about the risks of mutually assured destruction and were careful to avoid escalating conflicts to a nuclear level.
When the US was facing defeat in Vietnam there was no question of a tactical nuclear response. Likewise when the Soviet Union was facing defeat in Afghanistan. By the 1980s the nuclear deterrent had been so effective that the main fear of the weapons was a launch by mistake.
That was the situation that allowed David Lange to argue weapons so terrible that they could never be used were not worth the risk. Disarmament was safer than deterrence, he reckoned. Could he say that today?
"I am not bluffing," said Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo / AP
Putin issued his threat just as leaders of governments around the world were lining up for their annual address to the United Nations General Assembly. One leader's speech would have reinforced his belief the West is essentially weak.
"In New Zealand," said our Prime Minister, "we have never accepted the wisdom of mutually assured destruction. It takes one country to believe their cause is nobler, their might stronger, their people more willing to be sacrificed. None of us can stand on this platform and turn a blind eye to the fact there are already leaders among us who believe this."
Then she turned a blind eye to it. "There will be those who believe it is simply too hard to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons at this juncture," she continued. "But if given the choice – and we are being given the choice - surely we would choose the challenge of disarmament [rather] than the consequences of a failed strategy of weapons-based deterrence."
I have read her speech several times trying to work out its logic. How can it be sensible to advocate disarmament at this juncture? She might have the "choice", Ukraine doesn't.
"Some will call such a position naive," she said. Some would be right. "Some" was probably nearly all the UN delegations in their seats at the time and "naive" was possibly not the strongest word that entered their minds.
Ardern acknowledged her condemnation of Russia would be "just words" to the people of Ukraine. "They need us, as a global community, to ask one simple question," she said. What if it was us?"
Let me answer that one. If New Zealand was invaded by a nuclear-armed force, I am fairly confident we would not be marching against it with disarmament placards, we'd be fighting in any way we could and praying a similarly armed supporting power would be able to deter the invader from using a nuke.
President Biden has warned there will be "catastrophic consequences for Russia" if Putin carries out his threat. US national security adviser Jake Sullivan says Russians have been told in greater detail "directly and privately at very high levels" exactly what that means. The US would respond "decisively".
So we will soon see whether the "failed strategy of weapons-based deterrence" works. If Ardern is right, Putin will pull the trigger. If he does not, maybe we should stop spouting ill-timed, dogmatic idealism at a dangerous moment. It's embarrassing.
