Putin and the Risk of a Nuclear Attack: Let Us Not Panic, Let Us Remain Pragmatic.
Putin would have more to lose than to gain by making such a move.
This is probably the most terrifying scenario that can be conceived at the moment. Cornered, Vladimir Putin would launch nuclear missiles at Ukraine. Opening Pandora's box of the use of these apocalyptic weapons, which has been locked for seventy-seven years. With a real risk of conventional retaliation by NATO, and then of nuclear escalation on both sides. This is, however, the threat that the Russian president brandished last Wednesday in his speech to the Russian nation when he spoke of using “all the weapons of mass destruction at his disposal” if necessary.
Of course, this kind of threat is not unprecedented, since we have been living, more or less phlegmatically, under the regime of nuclear deterrence since the 1950s. Humanity has come within a hair's breadth of a nuclear confrontation at least twice, without the general public ever realizing it, in 1962 and, above all, in 1983, when Colonel Stanislav Petrov, of the Soviet warning system, had two minutes to estimate that the hundreds of American missiles hurtling towards his country were a radar bug.
Two nuclear powers, the USSR in Afghanistan and the United States in Vietnam, lost wars without resorting to this arsenal, just as the USSR and China clashed in 1969 on the border island of Damansky (probably 20,000 dead) without going nuclear. Moreover, Vladimir Putin had threatened, from the beginning of the invasion, on February 24, to strike with weapons “as you have never known” those who would thwart his plans.
However, the West did not flinch and delivered heavy weapons to Kyiv. Without the Kremlin retaliating. But the context is radically different today, since the fraudulent referendums that the Kremlin has organized as a matter of urgency in the Ukrainian territories that it controls, albeit partially, will provide it with a pretext to annex them. These territories will then be sanctuarized: any attempt to reconquer them would be considered in Moscow as an attack on the existential interests of the motherland, justifying a nuclear response.
One could, of course, call Vladimir Putin's bluff. But the last people to have considered that this was the case when he massed 180 battalions around Ukraine last winter were ridiculed. Besides, Vladimir Putin does not seem, by psychological construction, inclined to bluff. It is hard to find episodes in his career where he has not carried out his threats.
The look of history
The situation is all the more critical because the international community has little choice. As Churchill said, “A conciliator is someone who feeds a crocodile hoping to be eaten last.” To give in to the Kremlin's threats now would be to enter a world in which the “grammar” governing the use of nuclear weapons, which are intended only to deter an attack threatening the existence of a nation and not to support the annexation of a neighbor, would be worthless.
Tomorrow, Russia, or any other nuclear power, could invade a territory, immediately hold a referendum recognized by no one, and threaten the amputated country with an apocalypse if it tried to defend itself. To be reassured, there are solid reasons to believe, on the contrary, that Moscow will not cross the red line.
First, the Russian president has not explicitly threatened to strike Ukraine if it retakes the Donbas or Kherson. He has limited his threat to a curious context of “nuclear blackmail” that the West is supposed to deliver to him, of which there is no trace. Moreover, the Ukrainian army has already struck Russian territory, in Belgorod, or Crimea, annexed in 2014, without raising the alarm of Russian nuclear forces.
Moreover, by resorting to tactical nuclear missiles (power lower than that of Hiroshima but tens of thousands of deaths and a radioactive zone uninhabitable for a long time... including for Russian soldiers), Vladimir Putin would leave an infamous trace in history - a subject he is obsessed with. Above all, he would make his country an absolute pariah, warned Joe Biden on September 18, apparently informed in advance of the content of the Russian president's speech.
The military high command to be convinced
Even China, a key partner of Russia but an instinctively conservative power with an economy fundamentally geared to exports, and therefore vulnerable to global shocks, has recently expressed its dissatisfaction with the Kremlin's adventurism, as have India and Turkey, which have been indulgent until now. But they would not want to see their Western markets closed if they were to trade with a country that has become a pariah.
Above all, before pressing the button, Vladimir Putin would have to convince his military high command - the nuclear code is shared with his Minister of Defence and his Chief of Staff, who are reputed to be on the verge of disgrace - that losing the Donbas or Crimea would threaten Russia's existential interests. However, the support of the people for this narrative is no longer evident.
So let us not give in to panic, and let us remain pragmatic in the face of Vladimir Putin's threats of nuclear attack.
Some reading
In the Face of Putin’s Nuclear Threat, the United States Refuses to Escalate. Washington warns of the catastrophic consequences of such an act on the part of Russia but remains vague about its potential response.
Putin Has Passed the Point Of Not Return — The Security and Stability of the World Mean Moving On to the Post-Putin Era. There is nothing to negotiate with Putin. Russia gambled on force and lost.
India Is Beginning to Lose Patience and Is Urging Vladimir Putin to End the War in Ukraine. The worst thing for New Delhi would be a Russia so weakened and isolated that it would become subservient to China, India’s rival.
Hedge Fund Traders Suspected of Insider Trading in the British Pound, Following a Dinner With Liz Truss. This dinner took place a week before the announcement of his shock economic program for the UK.