The British would like to indulge themselves with the thought that the death of Queen Elizabeth marked the end of an era in their portion of the planet, but in the UK as well as in the rest of the world the real fin de siècle came on February 24th this year, with the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It has had enormous consequences in terms of the global economy, and has brought shortages, inflation and cost-of-living increases to millions of inhabitants in the vast majority of nations. How all of that might work its way out is by no means clear at the moment, but in the meantime there is a more sinister existential threat to human life on Earth which has been delivered by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
It is no secret that Russia is doing badly on the battlefield, having recently lost substantial swathes of territory which were recaptured by Ukraine in a stunningly fast advance in the north-east. The Russians, taken by surprise retreated in a hurried and disorganized way, which has generated criticism even from Mr Putin’s staunchest supporters. The President’s response has been to order the first mobilisation since the Second World War, albeit a partial one, and the announcement of a plan to hold what would be fake referendums in those areas currently held by the invaders, asking if they wanted to be part of Russia.
What came next, however, is what has caused especial concern at an international level, and that was President Putin’s indication of a preparedness to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. He has made vague threats along these lines before, but by and large he was not taken too seriously by the West. It is different this time in so far as it is recognised he is in a desperate situation and is not a man to ever back down, in addition to which he is under pressure from those who feel that major mistakes have been made in the military department. His words were also phrased in a less indistinct way and he made a point of saying he was not pretending.
“If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff,” he said. This was couched in a welter of allegations that the West was planning to destroy Russia, and had discussed the potential use of nuclear weapons against Moscow. “In its aggressive anti-Russian policy, the West has crossed every line,” Mr Putin said. “This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them.”
The first question which arises is whether what will shortly become annexed territories be placed in the same category as Russia proper. If they are, then would the nuclear threat apply to them, or is this just a way of trying to frighten Nato into preventing Ukraine from trying to retake any further territory? Mr Putin was also reported as saying, for example, that the US, EU and UK were encouraging Ukraine to take its military operations into Russia itself.
At the bottom of all this is whether the Russian President is serious. President Biden, at least, took the threat at face value and responded, “Don’t, don’t, don’t …” The problem is no one can really say with any certainty whether he is or not. If he is simply daring the West to blink first and they don’t, the issue still remains as to what he would do then. Reuters reported a UN expert at the institute for disarmament research as saying that Mr Putin’s warning of nuclear war when territorial integrity is threatened goes beyond the Russian nuclear doctrine “which only suggests Russian first use in conventional war when the very existence of the state is threatened.” As such, said the expert, he should be taken seriously.
The New York Times did an analysis of Kremlin power groups, explaining that the “so-called systemic liberals” were mostly to be found in the state financial institutions and among the oligarchs and that their concerns revolved around economic consequences. But a more difficult segment which the paper calls “the party of war” comprising the security agencies, the Ministry of Defence, and some media and political people, have been more consistently critical. In their case, they don’t want to stop the war, they want it more aggressively prosecuted, and they have been putting pressure on the Kremlin.
The ‘party’ had made its voice clearly heard since the failure to take Kyiv, and did not accept the reduced goals which were enunciated thereafter. With bad reports from the battlefield as well as the military reverses, the group called for full-scale war, and leaders such as the infamous Chechen head of state Ramzan Kadyrov and the Communist Party leader, among others, started calling for mobilisation. The NYT concluded that it was this group which was influencing policy now.
Certainly the language from some media personalities is anything but restrained. For example, Reuters reported Russian state television host Olga Skabeeva as saying on air that Moscow should have nuked Britain on the day of Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral to cause maximum chaos. Then Andrey Gurulyov, a member of the Russian Duma, in agreement responded that Britain could be turned into a “martian desert”.
There are different levels of nuclear attack, and nuclear weapons fall in two categories: strategic or tactical. The first is for ‘winning’ a war, the second for winning a battle. Quoting a British security think tank Reuters says that the range of Russia’s tactical arsenal is around 300 miles, while that of strategic missiles is around 3,000. In addition, tactical weapons have a lower explosive yield. It is presumed that what President Putin is talking about is the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.
The agency goes on to quote a war studies expert at King’s College, London as saying, “The potential targets for limited [ie tactical] nuclear strikes [in Ukraine] are those already identified for conventional strikes – critical infrastructure more than cities.” He also suggested that the uninhabited Snake Island could be nuked as a demonstration to cause fear in the West. It has to be said that even with a limited nuclear strike in an uninhabited area, there is the matter of radiation to consider. While Nato and the US in particular might not respond in kind to a small nuclear strike (although no one knows for sure), it has been asked what would happen if radiation from such a bomb spread to a European ally such as Poland, since this could trigger Article 5 of the Nato Defence Treaty. What would the allies, and again, the US in particular, do in such circumstances?
For anything larger Prime Minister Liz Truss was quoted by Reuters as saying during the Tory leadership campaign that she was “ready” to push the nuclear button even if this led to what her interviewer called “global annihilation.” What Mr Putin has done should even cause those developing countries where he so far has found support to take notice; the last thing anyone anywhere in the world should want is a World War III.
Even before his latest spine-chilling words, the President of Russia faced unexpected criticism either directly, or by implication from some major leaders who had previously appeared more sympathetic, or at least, not hostile. At a summit in Uzbekistan Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told him that “today’s era is not an era of war,” and while Chinese President Xi Jinping did not say anything which was publicly recorded, Mr Putin himself acknowledged China’s “concerns.” As for Turkey’s President Erdogan, he was reported as telling PBS that he had urged the Russian President to bring an end to the war: “The lands which were invaded will be returned to Ukraine,” he said. He apparently included Crimea in these, which indicates he would not recognise any subsequent annexations either.
Of course there is always the question of whether the Russian generals would carry out an instruction to use a nuclear weapon even if President Putin ordered it. He himself cannot press a button to initiate such an action; he can only press a button to indicate an order transmitted to central command.
If Ukraine goes ahead and liberates more territory, and if the West simply doesn’t take the Kremlin’s threats seriously, what does Mr Putin do then? He would be under even more pressure from his ‘war party’, and he would look weak if he did not do what he is threatening. It could even lead to his ouster, which would not necessarily be good news for Ukraine, the West or Russia, depending on who succeeded him. All one can hope is he has a Plan B, allowing him to end the war.
In the meantime, the world as one has to dissuade the seemingly irrational President Putin from resorting to the nuclear option. Many developing countries have given him their backing, but on this single issue of no nuclear weapons they should speak with one voice, even if they support Russia on the matter of its invasion. For a start, the Commonwealth should make a statement; representing one third of the world’s population and 56 nations it is not a small voice if it speaks in unison.
There is too the UN General Assembly, but that takes longer to organize although matters would go faster if the Commonwealth spoke first. The idea of risking Armageddon is unthinkable to everyone who lives on this planet. Mr Putin might believe he is restricting the danger by using only tactical weapons (if he does in fact intend to use them), but he has no control over events after that. As it is, he has already crossed a line in his announcement; even during the cold war neither the US nor the USSR made such threats, although there was the near confrontation over the Cuba deployment. On that occasion the Kremlin backed down initially on the basis of a compromise over American deployment in Turkey.
In 1945 the US dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is the only time the nuclear option has been used, and it should stay that way.
