A theft of territory and then the blackmail of the nuclear weapon to defend it. With Putin’s campaign faltering has also come the most dangerous moment of the war. But Russia, as we read today on the website of the state agency Ria Novosti, is again “a great historical Russia”, the “freest” country in the world. After a patently irregular vote, conducted under the threat of arms, four Ukrainian regions joined the Russian Federation. Putin announced the result of the farce referendum: annexation. A defensive move, albeit painted by a great victory. By annexing the four occupied regions (which, by the way, he doesn’t even completely control), he wants to communicate to the Ukrainians – and to the Westerners who arm them – to stop driving out the invading army. In a grotesque reversal, he declared: “I want the Kiev authorities and their real masters in the West to listen to me: the people in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia become our citizens today. Forever!”.
In Russian military doctrine, the motherland under attack can also be defended by nuclear weapons. So what will Putin do? From a brutally practical standpoint, how could he use an atomic weapon to his advantage? An article in the Economist tries to analyze this new nuclear emergency, actually the most serious since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. First of all, according to the experts interviewed, the danger in Ukraine concerns non-strategic weapons, but the so-called “tactical” atomic ones: they have a shorter range and less explosive force, yet more powerful, in many cases, than the bombs dropped in Japan in World War II.
There are about 2,000 of these devices in the Russian arsenal. Experts identify three ways Russia might decide to use them. In the first case there is a “demonstration shot” (which does not kill anyone). A nuclear test underground or in the atmosphere. Maybe in the Black Sea or high above Ukraine itself, “avoiding deaths but causing an electromagnetic pulse that would send electrical equipment into a tailspin”. Would it really be useful? Perhaps not – if the Ukrainians continued to fight, a wave of contempt would fall upon Russia with no real military gains. The Kremlin generals may therefore prefer a direct bombing of Ukrainian targets, “also because the Russian army is short of men and material”. Possible targets: airports, logistics centers and points where artillery is concentrated, says Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank. Again, what would be the real benefits? Ukrainian troops, the analyst points out, are quite scattered across the territory and armies can be surprisingly resilient. According to Berry, four tactical weapons would be needed to neutralize a Ukrainian brigade (around 3,000-5,000 troops) even if it were focused on an offensive.
Russia could then choose more ruthless methods, such as a bomb on a Ukrainian city, a massacre of civilians to push the country to surrender. However, this option carries enormous risks. It could trigger direct NATO intervention and the destruction of the Russian army. In a conventional war, Moscow has no escape, and if it responded with a nuclear attack against NATO countries it would be a potentially suicidal move, given that America, Great Britain and France are equipped with atomic weapons.
So each of these roads is full of unknowns and big drawbacks. “This is because nuclear threats are very difficult to make,” notes Eric Edelman, a former Pentagon undersecretary of politics. But responding to such threats is just as complicated. Deterrence is based on a mixture of credibility, firmness and strategic ambiguity. Joe Biden has so far said that if the Russians detonate nuclear weapons, NATO’s response will depend on the severity of the attack.
An answer with conventional weapons is the most likely one, explains the Economist, as American officials have hinted in their statements. This could include the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine or the execution of direct attacks on Russian targets. But Putin could respond by hitting similar targets: American warships in the Mediterranean, military structures on NATO soil. Here we go back to the starting point, the one that Biden has always tried to avoid: a conventional response could lead to a direct NATO-Russia conflict, with the consequent risk of a nuclear war.
Are we really willing to do anything to help Ukraine? Analysts who believe that we should stay on Kiev’s side highlight two aspects. The first: on the one hand, Russia is in no way in a position to support a conventional confrontation with America and its allies; on the other hand, for Moscow, raising the bar with atomic weapons entails the risk of total destruction of both sides. A suicide that nobody wants, at least in theory. The second aspect highlighted is this: it is worth taking the risk (which is actually less than one might think), because surrendering to the blackmail of Russia – which uses the atomic shield to seize the territory of a neighbor – would encourage other autocrats to do the same. “It would be a terrible world to live in. The cost of stopping such a threat later on is higher than stopping it now,” said Edelman, the former Pentagon undersecretary of politics.
But there are also those who believe that the real ingredient in avoiding catastrophe is fear. The main lesson from 1962 still holds true today: “Be afraid,” Max Hastings tells The Economist.
author of “Abyss”, a new book on the Cuban missile crisis. According to Hastings, what averted a cataclysm was Kennedy and Khrushchev’s fear of nuclear war. In concrete terms, it means determination, but also the desire to compromise in private. The West, “while continuing to support Ukraine, must recognize that at some point an agreement, even if not exactly clear, will have to be found to defuse the danger,” says Hastings.
At this point, however, the question arises whether Putin is willing to compromise. It is true that he has so far not used nuclear weapons and the United States says there is no evidence that he is preparing to use them. But he ups the ante. The mobilization and annexation of the four Ukrainian regions have transformed the so-called “special military operation” into a war for the defense of Russian soil, a war that cannot be lost, but which does not seem capable of winning in the least.
After the deadly offensive in early September, Ukrainian forces went even further east, and almost surrounded Lyman, a strategic city for the Russians in the Donbas, the region just annexed by the referendums – which Moscow does not control, however. More than five thousand Russian soldiers are at risk of being trapped. “Operations to liberate the city are underway,” a member of the Ukrainian National Guard told the Financial Times yesterday. “It is important to show the Russian leadership that we are not afraid of their (nuclear) blackmail …” In Moscow, meanwhile, the warmongering propagandists are furious. On the air, with the usual uniform reminiscent of Star Wars, Vladimir Solovyov vented all his frustration: “Don’t we have the strength? Don’t we have the resources? An army of one million people. Stop losing territory, stop losing city. Now we have to get serious ”.
Unlimited access to all site content
€ 1 / month for 3 months, then € 3.99 / month for 3 months
Unlock unlimited access to all content on the site
#atomic #tactics #weapons #Putin #disposal