Given what “containment” and “deterrence” consists of on one hand and the Russian perspective on the other hand, it follows that at one particular stage of the Cold War in the 20th century, the United States took a shot at what is known as détente in order to probe as to whether the prospect or possibility of peaceful coexistence with Russia was realistic and within reach. In a sense, détente and peaceful coexistence is an implied and presumptive critique and deconstruction of “containment” and deterrence given what “containment” and deterrence entail on one hand and the Russian perspective on the other hand.
In terms of what “containment” and “deterrence” consist of in reality and in practice, G. Lowes Dickinson stated it best when he wrote: “My theme may be put in a sentence – if mankind does not end war, war will end mankind.” He added:
“In all the principal countries of the world, after the ‘war to end war,’ men of science are busy investigating methods of destroying by war men, women, children, factories, cities, countries, continents. In part they know how to do it already, in part they are perfecting their weapons; and there is no limit to their powers. This was not true in the past, but it is true in the present, and it will be truer in the future. There is the new fact, that puts out of date all the ordinary discussions of war. War now means extermination, not of soldiers only, but of civilians and of civilization.”
And as we mentioned before, one of the foremost critics of “containment” and “deterrence” who in turn sought to give détente with Russia a try and was in fact one of the pioneers of the policy of peaceful coexistence with Russia during the 20th century Cold War was Henry Kissinger. Kissinger summed up the whole Cold War context in one point when he wrote: “Perhaps the basic problem of strategy in the nuclear age is how to establish a relationship between a policy of deterrence and a strategy for fighting a war in case deterrence fails.”
In other words, if deterrence and everything that deterrence consists of ends up failing – which is the case at the present moment – how do we prosecute a war against the opposing side? The answer, according to Kissinger, is to not “extricate” oneself from the war as a result of the threat of all-out war. That is perhaps the only way out of the very real prospect of all-out war, the specter of which has loomed over both Washington and Moscow for the longest time now. Kissinger wrote: “The psychological equation…will almost inevitably operate against the side which can extricate itself from a situation only by the threat of all-out war.” He added: “Who can be certain that, faced with the catastrophe of all-out war, even Europe, long the keystone of our security, will seem worth the price?”
There is in a sense a “psychological gap” that emerges as a result of the cost of retaliating against Russia on one hand and the belief on the part of Russia that they have “nothing to fear” from Western threats on the other hand. In turn: “This gap may actually encourage the Soviet leaders to engage in aggression.”
Kissinger arrived at the conclusion that given what “containment” and “deterrence” actually consist of, it “forces our statesmanship to cope with the fact that absolute security is no longer possible.” And of course, to navigate this uncertain and precarious situation, the basic task becomes one of interpreting or understanding what history tells us about our relationship with Russia. And history tells us that after Kissinger’s détente, Moscow decided that it would invade and occupy Afghanistan. And the rest was history per se. Thus, in our pursuit of détente today, we must acknowledge and recognize what will inevitably come out of our pursuit. As the expression goes, give a mouse a cookie, and it will ask for a glass of milk. This is of course what “containment” and “deterrence” as well as its flipside of détente and peaceful coexistence consist of. Next, we will assess the Russian perspective – which combined with what “containment” and deterrence as well as détente and peaceful coexistence consist of – forms the basis or the essentials of a basic critique and deconstruction of the deterrence mindset.
Adam A. Azim 