When Putin says ABMs in Western Europe are destabilizing, he is saying there is a threat to neutrality. There is a price to be paid (probable risk) that naturally correlates with not yielding to the element of neutrality.
There is a parallel doctrine at play, a dual identity that yields to the fully assumed risk of loss. The duality is the tenet of peace through strength. However, what is good about your strength measures the value of your opponent’s weakness, which is bad because it is unstable.
Again, it is a null hypothesis. Naturally, the risk of loss is fully assumed in priority. Risk analysts discount the probable risk depending on relative strength, which also measures weakness, which also measures the probability of acting out of measurable weakness, ad infinitum…. The result is a mathematical probability, a geometric proof that postulates objective reality, to be empirically tested on demand.
The possibility of mass destruction makes this a critical game of managing the probabilities. If you don’t show strength (having first-strike capability because you have ABMs, identified as neutralizing the strength of your opponent but to your opponent is exceedingly coercive) then your opponent must produce more weapons than you have ABMs. The result is an arms race.
The economic effect of an arms race is a growing debt proportion, and like intellectuals in the 1940s said, its geometric progression suggests a deliberate economic detriment, effectively delivered on an industrial scale referred to by capitalists as the efficiency of an economy-of-scale proportion.
Bringing the risk to scale, making the parties yield to its TBTF proportion, makes using WMDs reasonably impractical, but it is a functional psychopathy that measures the capacity for empathy, which is an affective attribute that “would act” to effectively neutralize the risk.
Empathy of your opponent is highly speculative. This is especially true for non-democratic regimes in which the rulers are more apt to govern by fiat, and especially if it’s a simple matter of pushing a button to do the “unacceptable harm.”
Since doing the harm is acceptable in self-defense, responding to ABMs with your own ABMs is a logical “measure.” The result is a natural, measurable tendency, yielding to a neutral (ontological) identity.
If the objective is to show strength to deter your opponent, an ABM race is likely, but it still has a deflationary effect, which causes the angst (the affective measure) of economic desperation in a TBTF, economy-of-scale proportion.
Bringing the risk-value “to scale” (like capitalism is apt to “affectively” do) realizes the price to be paid (the fully assumed risk) in the gamma-risk dimension. Being TOO BIG to fail forces the value of confirmed conformity, and in the realm of economics the Equivalent Coercive Value manifests as the risk to be avoided (the TBTF proportion). The coercive value actualizes, like Kant postulates, a non-parallel (categorical) imperative that neutralizes the risk (the moral hazard), but does not destroy it, effectively conserving it in the aggregate for constructive use (its deterrence value) in its deconsolidated form.
Like Hayek said, maybe it is not really a function of opposing ideologies. Instead, it is a function of economic scale.