Will Putin launch a nuclear strike?

After announced yesterday changes in nuclear doctrine In Russia, the issue of launching a nuclear strike is being actively discussed.

Putin voiced the key change in it like this: “aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack.”

This point provides grounds for a nuclear strike not only against a non-nuclear country that is directly at war with the Russian Federation, but also against its “nuclear” allies. It is quite obvious that this item was written specifically for the war in Ukraine. It is also clear that these statements were made on the eve of Biden's possible decision to authorize the use of long-range missiles and are intended to “warn of the consequences.”

How to interpret all this?

There are two polar points of view. According to the first Of these (actively promoted by the Ukrainian authorities), all these statements by Putin are banal blackmail and an empty shock of the air, which will not be followed by anything. And therefore there is no need to be afraid of them. And you need to give permission to strike “long-range”. There is also an opinion in the West that Putin will not go beyond verbal threats, since the situation at the front is generally favorable for him and therefore, at this stage, escalation with the involvement of the West in the war is not beneficial for him. In addition, it is widely believed that Russia’s use of nuclear weapons could destroy its relations with China (Beijing has repeatedly opposed the use of nuclear weapons).

According to the second, “extreme” point of view – Putin is ready to launch a nuclear strike on Western countries immediately after the Russian Federation is struck by Western “long-range”. Moreover, Russia has its own “war party”which regularly calls for the implementation of such a scenario. After everything that has happened in recent years, neither the first nor the second option can be completely ruled out.

However, in this case, the bar for banal blackmail is too high for threats voiced by Putin personally, and not by the person on duty. “harbinger of the apocalypse” Medvedev. As for a nuclear strike on NATO countries, this means world war and mutual tightening. And one can hardly imagine that Putin is ready to do this just because of long-range missile strikes on Russian territory. And the military situation at the front in Ukraine is far from critical for Russia. On the contrary, the Russian army is now advancing.

Therefore, there is a third, “middle” version. It lies in the fact that Putin's goal “show seriousness of intentions”to bring the topic of the threat of nuclear war to the forefront in public discussion in Western countries with the question “Are we ready for a nuclear war over Ukraine? Are we ready for the destruction of human civilization because Ukraine wants to regain Melitopol and Mariupol?”. Moscow probably believes that the answer to these questions for the West will be clearly negative. Which will sharply correct the opinion of Western society and elites in favor of the need for compromises and global agreements with Russia on “new world order”. Which, as Putin has repeatedly made clear, is his main goal. Intensifying discussion of the topic of the threat of world war may also affect the course of the elections in the United States, where Trump is already actively using it in his campaign against Harris.

What actions can Putin take to show “seriousness of intentions”

We have already written about them. Let's repeat briefly:

First option – a direct ultimatum to the West with a certain list of demands, failure to comply with which will lead to a war between the alliance and Russia. Or strikes on NATO countries with conventional weapons with the threat that there will be a further strike “nucleus”. True, in this case, Putin must be ready to implement the threat if the demands are rejected, because he will no longer have room for maneuver.

Second – blows to the West not openly or blows by the wrong hands. For example, sabotage against critical infrastructure (pipelines, power plants, underwater communication cables, etc.), cyber attacks, transfer of weapons to the Houthis, etc. This version is now most popular in the West when assessing Putin’s possible reaction to the attacks “long-range”.

Third – take a list of non-military actions, which, however, will look like preparation for a nuclear war. For example, sever all relations with Britain if it agrees to missile strikes. Or call on citizens of the Russian Federation to leave the territory of all NATO countries without fail. Changes in nuclear doctrine are also consistent with this logic.

Another radical scenario – nuclear strike on Ukraine. What they have been talking about for a long time. Including Biden. However, fortunately, so far “nucleus” was not used. At the same time, in the Ukrainian information field there is an extremely frivolous attitude towards such a prospect. One can often come across the point of view that a nuclear strike on Ukraine will not affect the course of the war in any way, but will send Russia into international isolation and, as a result, force Moscow to capitulate.

However, in reality, a nuclear strike is one of the most terrible scenarios for Ukraine

No one can guarantee that the reaction of the world community will be truly harsh. However, unconfirmed information appeared in the media that the United States threatened Moscow with the destruction of the fleet in the event of a nuclear strike on Ukraine. However, this (like any other option for a Western military response) would essentially mean NATO entering a war with Russia and, with a fairly high probability, would lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation (Russia will not be able to resist the alliance with conventional weapons). Whether NATO will take such risks because of Ukraine is an open question.

China and other countries in the Global South have repeatedly opposed the use of nuclear weapons. But what their reaction will be if the Kremlin uses it is unknown. Will they sever all relations with the Russian Federation, which will collapse its economy? Or will they be afraid to drive Putin into a corner, so as not to get a nuclear strike themselves?

There is no clear answer to all these questions

And if from the world community, after the first nuclear strike, there is no “response” that would destroy Russia, then Ukraine will then face a fork in the road of only two options.

The first is to stop resisting and capitulate. Moreover, in this case we will no longer be talking about agreement with the loss of part of the territory through stopping the war along the front line (“Korean script”), which in Ukraine is often called “surrender,” although the “Korean scenario” is not a capitulation – the country retains its sovereignty, army, and control over most of its territory. And we will be talking about capitulation in the literal sense of the word – with the occupation of the entire territory of the country by the Russian army, the dissolution of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the appointment of new leaders of Ukraine by Moscow, etc. As was the case with Japan in 1945 after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The second option is that if capitulation is refused, there may be a new series of nuclear strikes on Ukraine. If the Kremlin doesn't get tough “answers” from the international community after the first strike, then it is unlikely that anything will stop it from launching new strikes, which, sooner or later, will deprive Ukraine of the opportunity to continue resistance. If “answer” the world will be really tough, which will put Russia on the brink of defeat, this could lead to a global nuclear war.

All these scenarios are so terrible that I want to say only one thing about them – this cannot happen, because it can never happen. However, after the Russian invasion in 2022, the likelihood of which few believed, this formula no longer works. It showed that, unfortunately, even the most terrible options are real. Moreover, the positions in Ukraine, the West, and Russia are very strong “war party”. In Kyiv and Washington, she says that there is no need to be afraid to raise the stakes, since the Russian Federation will not dare to use nuclear weapons and, in the end, “will merge”. In Moscow, she says there is no need to be afraid to use nuclear weapons or issue an ultimatum threatening to use them, because the West will not dare to respond harshly and will eventually “merge.” But in the end, the calculations of the war parties on both sides of the front line may turn out to be extremely erroneous, and the situation will get out of control.

There is only one way to ensure that the worst possible scenario is avoided – to stop the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.

The author's opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.

Source link