NUCLEAR WAR. Russia continues to brandish the nuclear threat but after the various military escalations, casting the shadow of a tactical nuclear attack could be its last option to try to freeze the conflict and limit Ukraine’s offensives.
[Mis à jour le 11 octobre 2022 à 1615] Nuclear war is not part of Vladimir Putin’s plan. This is what the spokesman for the Russian Embassy in France, Alexander Makagonov, said at the microphone of Classic Radio Tuesday, October 11. However, in the Ukrainian camp one prepares for the possibility of a nuclear strike, as well the government, the political institutions as the population. The West is trying to take a step back and stick to the observations of the intelligence services which do not betray the preparation of a nuclear attack but do not exclude this possibility either. So behind what advice should we line up? It is difficult to say, but it is clear that the latest speeches by the master of the Kremlin, coupled with recent events in the war in Ukraine – the appointment of Sergei Surovikin as head of the “special military operation” and above all the rain of air strikes which targeted kyiv and the major Ukrainian cities on October 10 – raise fears of recourse to the Russian nuclear arsenal. Vladimir Putin notably promised “tough and consistent responses” in the event of new “terrorist attacks” launched by Ukraine. Answers that could reflect a new military escalation and the use of missiles armed with nuclear warheads?
“Russian military and nuclear doctrine […] establishes a climbing path with several thresholds. There are criteria to meet. What is worrying is that several of these criteria have been crossed: general mobilization, announcements of strategic tests and a Grom, the name of a nuclear exercise” carried out this year details for RFI Vincent Tourret, specialist in Russian strategic culture at the University of Montreal. One of the next steps could therefore be the launch of a tactical nuclear weapon. But there are several downsides that weaken the hypothesis of a nuclear attack: a military factor since to attack Moscow would have to withdraw its troops and operations would then be impossible on the irradiated zone; and a political factor because even a so-called low-level tactical assault would call for a severe response from theNATO and would have serious consequences for Russia. It is therefore more likely that Vladimir Putin will maintain his deterrence strategy as he has done by regularly brandishing the nuclear threat since the start of the war in Ukraine. This deterrence, however, tends to become an admission of failure for Russia according to the analysis of Vincent Tourret: “The situation is so catastrophic and critical for the Russian army which can no longer hold the front, [la menace du nucléaire] is about the last option left to try to freeze the conflict” while the situation is slipping away from them and turned to Ukraine’s advantage. However, the risk that the threat materializes remains, especially if Moscow fails and refuses to admit defeat.
Can Russia start a nuclear war?
Threats of nuclear war have been a Russian refrain since the beginning of 2022. They go hand in hand with the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces launched on February 24 and have since been regularly uttered by the leaders of the Kremlin. But every time a nuclear attack has been mentioned, the possibility of being attacked has been ruled out on the one hand by military intelligence, on the other by regulations on nuclear attacks. Russian doctrine, however, authorizes an assault if the vital interests of Russia are threatened and Vladimir Putin opened this door ajar during his speech on September 21 by assuring that territorial integrity, [la] freedom, [la] sovereignty will be defended [de la Russie] by any means necessary” and that they were already endangered by the actions of the West. This now concerns, in addition, in his eyes, the four Ukrainian regions which were annexed at the end of September.
The launching of an offensive nuclear attack is strictly prohibited for all nuclear powers and Russia would be in the wrong position if it initiated the attack. Moreover, the consequences of dropping an atomic bomb would be unprecedented and would not spare Russia. Still, the Kremlin doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons for tactical attacks on certain areas and this possibility was already put forward by the Russian forces a few months ago. According to Colonel Michel Goya, guest on BFM Business on October 4, the Russians “have the means to do it, but they know that it is a weapon of last resort and [ils] are not there militarily”.
Especially since if the assault would strike a blow, it would then paralyze the confrontation because everything would be destroyed and above all, the area would be contaminated by radiation. Militarily, the benefits of a tactical nuclear attack are debatable, but politically they are nil. A tactical assault remains a nuclear attack that would call for a severe and immediate response from the West. Who is ready to answer as indicated by the former director of the CIA, David Petraeus, on ABC Sunday, October 2: “We would respond by leading a NATO effort that would eliminate all Russian conventional forces that we can see.” The man however added: “we do not want to embark, once again, on a nuclear escalation.”
What are the reactions to the threat of nuclear war?
Russia is the only one to have repeatedly brandished the nuclear threat and also the only one to support the idea. In the West, a nuclear attack is considered the worst-case scenario and China and India, which present themselves as allies of Moscow against the Western bloc, have also refused the hypothesis of a nuclear attack by calling for a “cease -fire through dialogue” as well as a “solution that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all parties as soon as possible”. It is therefore difficult for Vladimir Putin to find support. The fact remains that the nuclear threat still hovers and that the reactions to the vindictive speech of the head of the Kremlin were not long in coming. In New York, during the UN General Assembly, the head of NATO denounced the “dangerous nuclear rhetoric” of the Russian president. He was followed by US President Joe Biden who accused Russia of “brazenly violating” the founding principles of the United Nations.
Unlike Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksy said he “did not believe” in the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, in an interview with German television. Picture TV, while Emmanuel Macron called on the international community to “put maximum pressure” on Vladimir Putin. Speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the French president also welcomed the statements from China and India.
“Vladimir Putin’s speech and his decision to mobilize the Russian population is a clear admission that his invasion is a failure,” said new British Prime Minister Liz Truss, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that “Putin is only making things worse” and that “he has completely underestimated the situation from the start, and the Ukrainians’ will to resist”.
Several nuclear threats proliferated by Vladimir Putin
There are countless times when Russia has threatened the West to use its nuclear force, either openly or between the lines. At regular intervals and in particular when the Kremlin army is in bad shape or losing momentum, the nuclear deterrence strategy comes back to the fore and Vladimir Putin’s warning in his speech of September 21, 2022 is a new stage of this war. But, if the threats follow one another, they are always presented as responses to a Western nuclear offensive. The master of the Kremlin reversed the roles during his speech by accusing NATO of “blackmailing nuclear weapons”, a tactic which was rather observed in the Russian camp.
Before the speech understood as a sign of weakness by Vladimir Putin, the previous Russian nuclear threat dates back to July 6, 2022 and was signed by the Vice-President of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev. On his Telegram account, the politician had waved the Russian arsenal in the face of the West: “The very idea of punishing a country which has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world is absurd in itself. And that potentially creates a threat for the existence of mankind”. And the former president of the Russian Federation was not at his first attempt since in March, only a few days after the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army, he had detailed the scenarios in which Russia was allowed to use its nuclear weapons, scenarios that often blamed the West. Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Minister has also brandished the nuclear threat intermittently with the master of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin.
What do simulations of a Russian nuclear attack predict?
The nuclear threat has been brandished more than once since the start of the war in Ukraine. But the hypothesis of an attack took on another dimension in the spring of 2022 when, echoing Vladimir Putin’s speeches on the Russian strike force and arsenal, the media close to the Kremlin took part in the propaganda and lent themselves to simulations of a nuclear attack. On the public channel Rossiya 1, columnists assured on April 28, 2022 that it only took a few minutes for a missile to level European cities: 106 seconds to wipe Berlin off the map, 200 for Paris and 202 for London . The apocalyptic scenario is scary, but it is above all biased by pro-Russian discourse and conveys false information.
The following days, the speech of the Russian media and the simulations were discredited by the explanations of Benjamin Gravisse in the columns of Release. The political scientist specializing in Russian military issues said that the scenarios were based on the capabilities of the Satan 2 missile which is in possession of Russia but still in the test phase and unusable before the end of the year. Second problem, the simulations took into account a launch operated from the Kaliningrad enclave while this military base is not equipped to launch a nuclear missile and finally, even launched from this area, a missile would take longer to reach European capitals.
If these simulations of nuclear attacks are wrong, the risks of an assault with atomic weapons are always possible and the damage will be unprecedented. The fact remains that at the present time, apart from the capacities and the perimeters of the estimated destruction of each missile, nothing makes it possible to simulate the consequences of a nuclear attack. We simply know that within the Russian arsenal, certain nuclear warheads can reduce a territory over tens of kilometers to dust. Note that the West has missiles with an equivalent strike force.