Putin’s nuke threat sends the West into a huddle

EARLIER this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a major escalation of the war in Ukraine, with the threat to use Russia’s nuclear arsenal — the largest in the world, one that could destroy the world many times over — if his actions in Ukraine were challenged. The US, NATO and European nations were initially shocked. They know that nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used in a hurry. These are the weapons of last resort. And though Putin carries a briefcase — a communication tool that can connect him to all his top military commanders — he knows that once a nuclear attack is launched, there will be no going back. Nukes could be used only if Russia’s existence is threatened by a US-led NATO military invasion. And since the West has watched Russia’s botched-up invasion, it will continue giving support to Ukraine by proxy supplies and soldiers to exhaust Russian troops and their resources, but not escalate things further, unless Kyiv is to fall.

Putin’s threat comes days before his anticipated re-election for a six-year term. He has warned Kyiv and the West that Moscow would not hesitate to utilise its nuclear arsenal, if necessary, to defend the territorial integrity of Russia (including the regions in Ukraine that have been annexed) from a renewed NATO-backed Ukrainian counteroffensive. He has cited Russia’s security doctrine and laws that give him the licence to use nukes. Putin’s stand is backed by his long-time ally and former Russian President and Deputy Chairman of the country’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, who said Russian laws granted Moscow full leeway to protect what it would consider by law as Russian territory. “Encroachment on Russian territory is a crime which allows you to use all the forces of self-defence,” he had stated in a Telegram post, adding, “This is why these referendums are so feared in Kyiv and the West”. He further stated that no future Russian leader would be able to constitutionally reverse the outcome. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a news conference that Russia had “a doctrine for nuclear security which is an open document”.

In an interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had said that he did not think that Putin was bluffing. “He wants to scare the whole world. These are the first steps of his nuclear blackmail,” Zelenskyy had added. When asked if he thought stability was possible in Europe with Putin in power, Zelenskyy replied: “No… We have observed this over the years. We don’t see stability.”

According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), a think tank that tracks global nuclear stockpiles, Russia boasts the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads. About 1,500 of them are currently deployed.

Why is Putin taking the risk? Because he had himself encouraged a lack of public attention to the war for several months, hoping for swift military gains. But his invasion has been stalled, leading to discontent in Russia, and hence his threat to now use nukes to give his countrymen a morale-booster.

When Russian soldiers were making some gains in 2022, he ordered a mobilisation; he knew it could be fraught with serious discontent in society. So, he decided to order a partial mobilisation rather than a full one.

Commentator Anne Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic in September 2022: “There’s a crisis inside the military… The Russian army faces not just a logistical emergency or some tactical problems but also a collapse in morale. That’s why Putin needs more soldiers, and that’s why, as in Stalin’s time, the Russian state has now defined ‘voluntary surrender’ as a crime.”

“Under a law approved by the Russian Parliament… you can be sent to prison for up to 10 years. If you desert your guard post in Donetsk or Kherson (or change into civilian clothes and run away, as some Russian soldiers have done in the past few weeks)…,” Applebaum wrote.

“Support for Putin is eroding — abroad, at home, and in the army. Everything else he said was nothing more than an attempt to halt that decline,” she observed.

Analysts say the Kremlin’s nuclear threat is a move to force Ukraine’s surrender. “It’s (the talk about immediate referendums) an absolutely unequivocal ultimatum from Russia to Ukraine and the West: either Ukraine retreats or it’s a nuclear war,” political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya opined in 2022.

It is unclear how or whether the mobilisation would impact the situation on the ground. The challenge of training, arming and sending 3,00,000 men to the front was enormous, especially since Russia has already deployed its most experienced soldiers. Even then, Russia made a few rare admissions of military losses in Ukraine. “Since the start of the military operation, almost nothing has gone according to plan,” Stanovaya said.

According to experts, it might be more beneficial to respond to a Russian nuclear assault in a traditional military or diplomatic manner and provide Ukraine with more potent weapons so that it can attack Russia.

The US may also provide Ukraine with NATO aircraft, Patriot missiles, THAAD anti-missile batteries and ATACMS long-range missiles that Ukrainian forces might employ to launch attacks on Russia.

The Russian mobilisation is sparking fresh protests in its cities. It is also opening fissures in Europe about whether fighting-age Russian men fleeing in droves should be welcomed or turned away. For Ukrainian and Russian military planners, the clock is ticking to make fighting more complicated.

Though it is a tricky question, NATO and the US do not want to come across as being unprepared for an implicit nuclear threat. The options are difficult, and the West has not made it clear how it would react to a tactical nuclear strike.