2024-03-23 14:24:29
Vladimir Putin started threatening nuclear weapons again. “We have them. And we can use them,” he declared. According to a leading American expert, Professor Scott Sagan from Stanford University, the Russian ruler’s threats are not empty. On the contrary. In an interview for Aktuálně.cz, he describes why the risk of nuclear war is now so high, and explains how the West manages to dissuade Putin from using nuclear weapons.
Are the threats of nuclear weapons by Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin officials empty talk?
I think that Vladimir Putin is not just making threats. And he’s not bluffing. Bluffing means you lack the ability to do something. An empty threat is one that you have no intention of ever fulfilling. But Putin is doing something completely different. He threatens because he wants to reduce the willingness of the US and NATO allies to support Ukraine.
After all, he did it right at the start of the invasion when there was talk of a no-fly zone that would require NATO fighter jets to potentially shoot down Russian planes over Ukraine. Now he is again warning that nuclear weapons could be used in the event of a war between the North Atlantic Alliance and Russia. He’s not saying he would use them under any circumstances, but he’s also not saying he wouldn’t use them.
Russian doctrine states that nuclear weapons can only be fired if the sovereignty of the Russian Federation is threatened. It is dangerous because Putin annexed parts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions – editor’s note) put Russia in a position to use them if the Ukrainian army succeeded in liberating those areas. Putin claims that they are part of Russia.
Scott Sagan is a professor of political science at Stanford University in the US and co-director of the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). He is known for his research on nuclear weapons policy and nuclear disarmament, including discussions of systemic accidents. He publishes extensively on these topics. In Prague, he spoke at a regular conference organized by the Peace Research Center Prague.
Photo: Dominika Perlínová
Is the situation now the same as at the beginning of the war?
At the start of the invasion, Putin publicly stated on Russian television that Russian forces were moving to a higher state of nuclear alert. At the time, Western news sources picked up no action, nothing that was actually happening. It was more of a gesture, but according to Western intelligence sources, the likelihood of actual use of nuclear weapons was extremely low.
But then Putin raised the topic of nuclear weapons again in September and October 2022…
Back then, he threatened differently. After the annexation of Ukrainian territories, he declared that there was a precedent for using nuclear weapons to end a war. And that was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This scared many people, because he was not talking about a military tactical attack, but about the strategic use of nuclear weapons against Ukrainian cities.
Moreover, according to a number of newspaper reports, the American intelligence community had information at the time that the Russian military was talking about it internally. Details are unclear, but the US government estimated there was a fifty percent chance of nuclear weapons being used, according to The New York Times. In my opinion, this is the most serious nuclear crisis since the Cuban crisis in 1962.
Then why did the Russian threats stop?
Putin’s words prompted US President Joe Biden to say that if the Russians used nuclear weapons, it would spell disaster for them. We know that the Russian and American foreign and defense ministers talked to each other at the time, the CIA secret service talked to the FSB… We don’t know exactly how the West warned Russia, but a number of Western journalists with sources in the US, NATO and Russia wrote that there was a conventional threat: if Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the West will actively participate in the war, either only in Ukraine or in Russia as well.
It is also widely reported that Putin was also pressured by China and India. So there was both a deterrent threat from NATO and a friendly warning from some of Putin’s allies. Even though the Russian ruler eventually backed down, we should not claim success because it could happen again. After all, the goal of the Ukrainians is to push Russia out of all the occupied territories and return to the pre-2014 borders. And this suggests that if Russia starts losing again, this problem will reappear. We have to be ready for it.
But now Putin has repeated his nuclear threat again. Why?
I think it’s because of the fear that NATO might get directly involved in the war.
Could the current situation in the US Congress, when the United States is unable to send additional financial aid to Ukraine, and the approaching November presidential elections, after which Washington may no longer be as strong an ally of Kyiv as it has been, have influenced it?
As long as President Joe Biden is in office, America will be a strong ally of Ukraine. But you are right, the paralysis in the US Congress is extremely disturbing. I fear that many Republicans will wait until the election because they do not want to lose the support of former President Donald Trump before the party’s congressional primaries. But then they will have less to worry about their re-election because it is certain that the Republicans will win in their district. Therefore, I hope that they will soon be more willing to support an agreement on further military aid to Ukraine.
But it is important that in the meantime they are represented by the Czech Republic and other NATO countries, which are doing everything to ensure that weapons and ammunition reach Ukraine.
Would it even make sense for Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons now?
There are three ways, at least theoretically, that Russia could use nuclear weapons in the conflict in Ukraine. One of them is a so-called demonstration strike, which would try to show that Moscow is able and willing to do this. I think that is the least likely scenario. Using nuclear weapons in an uninhabited area would only show that Russia does not want to take risks.
Use on the battlefield is also considered. The greatest concern was during the siege of Mariupol, specifically Ukrainian fighters in Azovstal. This was a tactical target where a nuclear weapon would make sense. I don’t think there is another target like it on the battlefield today. The front is wide and long, so it would require extensive use of tactical nuclear weapons against many different forces. And I’m not sure the Russians would want to do something like that.
The third and most dangerous option is a nuclear strike against the city. That would have a terrible effect. The Russians are already targeting cities, but only a small fraction of their attacks will hit the target. But if one of the warheads was nuclear, it could destroy the entire city or a large part of it. That’s why Putin’s comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was so troubling. The difference between then and now is that Japan in 1945 could not defend itself. It could not hit the United States. We should remind Russian officials that the Ukrainians certainly could with our help.
Would Russia be willing to launch a nuclear war against a state that itself does not have nuclear weapons?
I can’t guess how likely that is. The Russians – as well as the Americans, Chinese and Indians – have a strong interest in continuing the tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons. However, this interest is not unlimited. It lacks emotional and ethical depth. It is not an unthinkable taboo.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had nuclear weapons, which it gave up. Kiev says many countries are now not supporting it as much as they would like because they fear a nuclear response from Moscow. What does this mean for nuclear proliferation in general?
Whenever a nuclear state commits an act of extreme aggression against a non-nuclear state, others begin to worry: Could it happen to us? The impact of this threat increases the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. It would be even worse if Putin used an atomic bomb and got away with it. It would tell other countries that they need nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Putin recently claimed that he has far more nuclear weapons than all NATO nations combined. But is it even important?
Indeed, Russia has far more tactical nuclear weapons than NATO countries. However, we are equipped with enough means to eliminate the targets we would like to destroy. Our armies have greater conventional capabilities than the Russian army. And we should focus on conventional power and build it.
If you want to reduce the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons or successfully using nuclear weapons, the ultimate answer is to develop your conventional capabilities to the point where Russia fears you can fight conventionally and defeat them.
Video: Putin flew in a strategic bomber
Putin sat down in a flight simulator. Then he explained to the students about flying in a strategic bomber. | Video: Associated Press