Nuke talk especially heats up anytime a rogue nation - usually one ostracized by the United Nations, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the late Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya, or theocratic Iran - begins enriching uranium. Yet, for the most part, as long as the world’s three largest nuclear powers - the U.S., Russia and China - do not square off in a war or are not sucked into a third-party conflict, the world assumes nukes are out of sight and out of mind. Or so we thought until recently. The current Ukraine war has restarted nuke talk. Outnumbered Ukraine unexpectedly repelled Russian invaders and talk arose from Russia about the use of nuclear weapons. Putin has recently boasted of possibly using nukes against both Ukraine, and those NATO countries who aided Kyiv. In theory, should NATO and the U.S. supply Ukraine tanks, artillery and planes, the fierce Ukrainians could push the entire Russian army entirely out of their country. But would a nuclear Mr. Putin allow that? Over the last few weeks, nuclear talk has arisen over a myriad of issues. If the war continues to go badly for Russia, at what point will a seemingly erratic Mr. Putin begin issuing nuclear redlines to Ukraine and its allies? Ukraine nuke talk spins off into lots of other places. Nuclear North Korea is resuming its ballistic missile launches to intimidate nonnuclear South Korea and Japan. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear stockpiles and now talks openly of ending a free Taiwan, warning Taiwan’s friends and allies to keep out - or else.

Some of us are old enough to remember how “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD, was supposed to ensure the general peace. Millions have grown up referring to the scary “doomsday clock” of atomic scientists that ticks closer to a midnight nuclear holocaust in times of crisis. So the planet is not naive about the dangers of its 13,000 to 15,000 nuclear weapons. In 1961, the Soviet Union terrified the world when it exploded history’s greatest nuke - the 50-megaton “Tsar Bomba.” The Cuban Missile Crisis a year later brought the United States and the Soviet Union closer to a nuclear exchange than at any time since. In 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan countered the Soviet nuclear-tipped SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at Europe by stationing American Pershing II missiles in Germany. In response, for a few months Hollywood and the media began talking about a “nuclear winter” to follow the supposedly reckless war talk of the American cowboy president. But what followed was a series of superpower missile negotiations that lowered the tensions of the waning Cold War. Every time a nondemocratic nation joins the nuclear club ㅡ Pakistan in the mid-1980s, North Korea in 2006 ㅡ the chances of a nuclear exchange supposedly increase. But we forget that a number of powerful European and Asian states could easily go nuclear at any time within months. Instead, influential, wealthy nations like Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea rely on either NATO or the huge nuclear arsenal of the U.S. to deter their nuclear enemies. If that assurance is ever in doubt, then at any moment they may decide to go nuclear themselves.

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is reported that Finland and Sweden intend to apply for NATO membership. Western leaders need to consider the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin could order a preventive attack on Finland and/or Sweden before official NATO membership is granted. For years Moscow made clear that it viewed NATO enlargement as a threat to Russia’s national security. Russia backed up its claim on three separate occasions in which it used military force ostensibly to prevent a bordering state from joining NATO. Would Russia seriously consider an attack on Finland or Sweden? While it may seem unlikely, the West should not underestimate the possibility that Mr. Putin, feeling isolated, backed into a corner, may make a rash decision. Russia may not have the current wherewithal to conduct a full-scale invasion of Finland or Sweden, but it could launch limited strikes on military targets, attempt to seize small portions of Finnish or Swedish territory, or conduct grey zone operations, such as cyberattacks. Russia would likely increase its military forces on Finland’s border, the Baltic Sea and in the Arctic. U.S. leaders will feel pressured to respond in kind, increasing U.S. troops in Europe, which already number 100,000. With tensions extremely high, further military deployments increase the chance for miscalculation. A NATO-Russia conflict, with its potential for nuclear escalation, would prove devastating on a global scale. As the United States shifts its attention to the Indo-Pacific and long-term strategic competition with China, Washington should encourage its wealthy and capable European allies to take primary responsibility for the continent’s defense.

With oceans to our east and west, and weak neighbors to our north and south, we Americans sometimes have a hard time understanding the plight of nations threatened by big, bad neighbors. Examples: China’s Communist Party insists it is entitled to rule the people of Taiwan. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is itching to subjugate South Koreans. And of course, we’ve known for years that Russian President Vladimir Putin had designs on Ukraine. Yet few of us expected him to launch a full-on, barbarian war of imperialist and colonialist conquest. Israel’s predicament is a bit different. The rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran do not want Israelis to submit. They want them to perish. “Death to Israel!” is a slogan meant to be taken both literally and seriously. Iran’s rulers are referring to Israeli Jews, but they also menace members of Israel’s minority communities who do not subscribe to the view that Palestine must be Jew-free. Iran’s rulers already control Lebanon, now a failing state, through Hezbollah. They maintain troops in Syria where, with their assistance and that of Russia, dictator Bashar al Assad has killed more than a half-million of his subjects. They back the Houthi rebels who have drenched Yemen in blood. Militias loyal to them are attempting to undermine a fledgling democracy in Iraq. They fund, arm and instruct Hamas in Gaza. Israelis have had to fight wars to retain their independence. Right now, Ukrainians are fighting for the same thing. That’s what nations with big, bad neighbors must do to survive.

Under Mr. Putin’s leadership, Russia continued on a destructive path as a revisionist autocratic power by invading Ukraine and illegally annexing Crimea in 2014; targeting civilians and inducing a massive flow of displaced people in Syria in support of dictator Bashar al Assad and his use of chemical weapons; interfering in U.S. and European elections; and launching malicious cyberattacks. And now the Russian military is raining down hell on Ukrainian innocent civilians, who are reaping what the KGB sowed. Estonian former Chief of Intelligence Eerik Kross has accurately identified the challenge, “which is immeasurably deeper, wider and older than Putin and his band of gangsters.” The Soviet Union’s human rights atrocities at home and abroad, Josef Stalin’s purges, the gulag system, as well as illegal annexations of the Baltic States and parts of Finland and Poland “were never criminalized.” Mr. Kross argues there was “never a national leadership-led redemption attempt.” There were no trials for Soviet war crimes. Mr. Kross assesses Mr. Putin has perpetuated the national myth about Russia being a liberator, when in fact “liberation” meant only subjugation and exploitation. For Mr. Kross, it’s not about Mr. Putin, but rather Russian society. Only the Russians can begin a “process of redemption and reeducation.” This of course is precisely what Mr. Putin fears most and it’s why he deals such harsh blows against anyone seeking to protest his rule. Mr. Putin’s war on Ukraine is consistent with Soviet goals of exercising influence and defending regime security. Pro-West democratic and prosperous former Soviet republics are an existential threat to Mr. Putin’s corrupt and repressive regime.

Russia’s brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has for all practical purposes terminated the post-Cold War period. Successive U.S. administrations made every effort to find common ground with Russian President Vladimir Putin, notably with former President Barack Obama’s ill-fated “reset” policy even after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. President Biden gave diplomacy one last chance during his April 2021 summit with Mr. Putin in spite of the 70,000 Russian troops mobilized on Ukraine’s border. But Mr. Putin had a more cataclysmal strategy in mind for Ukraine. The foundations of the post-Cold War period actually began eroding after Mr. Putin became President Boris Yeltsin’s prime minister in August 1999. During the 1990s, as Russia’s military, economy and geopolitical influence cratered, only Russia’s intelligence services continued to operate at full throttle. It should have come as no surprise, even if there was a touch of irony, that Mr. Putin became a modern-day Russian czar thanks to Yeltsin, who bravely led protests against the same KGB where Mr. Putin was groomed. Yeltsin made a Faustian, self-serving bargain with Mr. Putin, whose first act as president was to grant Yeltsin immunity from prosecution for stealing so brazenly from the Russian state. Mr. Putin never hesitated to use indiscriminate force, starting with his brutal campaign in Chechnya. At home, Mr. Putin took control of Russia’s media and harassed opponents as well as journalists by falsely declaring them a fifth column of “traitors and scum” doing the bidding of Russia’s external enemies. Mr. Putin wields unlimited power to control his nation’s domestic and foreign policy.

Tehran’s interventions in Latin America have included terrorist bombings in Argentina and currently include weapons shipments to Venezuela and Nicaragua. Iran’s rulers want to bestride the Middle East like a colossus, driving out infidel Americans and their “satanic” influences and toppling Muslim leaders friendly to the U.S., e.g., the Saudi, Bahraini and Emirati royals. The weaker Washington appears, the more we will see Arab pragmatists hedging their bets by attempting to placate what they fear will soon be a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic. Regarding Israel, Iran’s rulers harbor genocidal intentions. “We will not back off from the annihilation of Israel, even one millimeter,” Brigadier-General Abolfazl Shekarchi, spokesman for Iran’s armed forces, said in a recent interview. “We want to destroy Zionism in the world.” Turn now to Russia, where I’ve long been convinced, President Vladimir Putin sees himself as a 21st-century czar, committed to rebuilding the Russian empire, which became the Soviet empire even as Soviet leaders declared themselves anti-imperialists. Belarus, under Alexander Lukashenko, is already a vassal state. Mr. Putin has used military power to gain a foothold in the Middle East, including a Syrian port on the Mediterranean. Since 2008, he’s occupied 20% of neighboring Georgia. He threatens the Baltic states and foments instability in the Balkan states. He took Crimea away from Ukraine in 2014 and backs separatists in eastern Ukraine. He now has tens of thousands of troops pressing on Ukraine’s borders.

Former President Barack Obama believed he could entice Iran’s rulers to join the club in return for dollars, respect and a chance to “share the neighborhood” - the Middle East, that is - with Saudi Arabia. President Biden continues to make them offers they can refuse. All these once-great empires are now striking back to avenge what they perceive as humiliations and striking out to extend their influence. Start with Beijing, whose current imperial possessions include Xinjiang, a Turkic and Muslim land, and Tibet, which also is religiously, linguistically and culturally distinct from China. China’s rulers have stripped Hong Kong of autonomy and freedom, despite having signed a treaty pledging not to do that. Free, democratic and prosperous Taiwan has never been under Chinese Communist rule, but Beijing calls it a “rogue province” that must be brought to heel sooner or later. Escalating military threats have raised fears that it could be sooner. The Belt and Road Initiative is a neo-imperialist project with a global reach. China’s Communist rulers reportedly intend to establish their first permanent naval presence on the Atlantic Ocean in Equatorial Guinea. They also have a military base in Djibouti overlooking the Bab el-Mandeb, a strategic chokepoint for ships transiting the Suez Canal via the Red Sea. Tehran’s empire includes Lebanon, a country dominated by Hezbollah, the proxy of Iran’s rulers. Those rulers also deploy the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to Syria, instruct Shia militias in Iraq, and support the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

All were great empires in the past, and all now have rulers determined to establish great empires in the future.” And the question is: “What are China, Russia and Iran?” China is ruled by a Communist, Russia by a hyper-nationalist, and Iran by an Islamist. All three seek to restore what they consider their rightful realms, and all see the U.S. as their biggest obstacle. It’s on this basis that they now have a flourishing alliance. No surprise that American diplomats speaking softly and carrying carrots instead of sticks fail to achieve progress with any of them. Those who proclaim themselves jihadis of various stripes also intend to establish an empire, along with a caliphate, in the image of those that dominated much of the world for more than a thousand years. By the way, though not an adversary, Turkey, the heartland of the former Ottoman Empire, has become America’s least reliable and most problematic ally since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became its neo-sultan. Is America an empire - That depends on how you define the term. The U.S. has long led a rules-based, liberal, international order. We hoped and even expected that post-Soviet Russia and post-Maoist China would become stakeholders in this arrangement, preferring compromise to confrontation and tacitly acknowledging that American predominance is the worst form of global organization - except for all the others that have been tried. Over recent years, however, Moscow and Beijing have made abundantly clear that they intend to replace Washington as leader and chief rule-maker of an increasingly illiberal international order.

Beijing’s broken promise to coexist with democracy in Hong Kong and Moscow’s violation of security assurances bare indisputable evidence that China and Russia can’t be trusted. Russia and China possess hypersonic missiles and antisatellite and cyber weapons that we don’t have. Those could take out the Golden Gate Bridge, disable the navigation systems of the U.S. fleet and wreak havoc on U.S. infrastructure. The United States simply can’t champion democracy and free markets while pandering to Organized Labor’s protectionism. We must rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership to provide Asian nations with the opportunity to build an economic community and prosperity less dependent on China. We need to ask how our military became so ill-prepared for a conflict in the Pacific and why it can’t fight a two-front war. Radical reform, not more money will supply the answers. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sold the president the idea that we could negotiate with Mr. Putin even after the Afghanistan debacle because at the department he heads, diplomacy is the answer to everything. Appeasing Russia caused Ukraine to have neither adequate weapons to defend itself nor some U.S. and British combat troops present with the clear understanding we would sink Russia’s fleet if Russia’s army engaged with those troops. We simply can’t permit Russia or China to freeze American conventional military aid and forces by threatening nuclear weapons. We need to address the world as we find it, not as we think it should be.