Russian President Vladimir Putin. Sputnik/Sergei Ilyin/Pool via REUTERS
At the recent Munich Security Conference, Professor Graham Allison, a leading scholar at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, shared his concerns about possible actions by Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the use of nuclear weapons. Allison warned that if Putin were cornered on the battlefield, he might choose to resort to nuclear strikes, despite the devastating consequences this would entail.
You may be interested in: Akiyama Nobumasa: “We must handle the hypothesis of an imminent threat as long as nuclear weapons exist”
During the panel titled “Turning back the clock (on the end of the world): lessons (to) be learned in nuclear security,” held in Germany on February 16, Allison highlighted that Putin’s threat of nuclear attacks against Ukraine represented the most dangerous moment since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
According to Allison, “if conditions on the battlefield force Putin to choose between a decisive loss and the use of nuclear weapons, I bet he will carry out nuclear strikes even now.”
You may be interested: They reveal that Russia prepared for years to face a possible Chinese invasion
This grim forecast underscores the seriousness of the current situation in Eastern Europe and the potential implications of a broader conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Although dialogue and diplomacy remain the preferred tools for addressing geopolitical tensions, warnings from experts like Allison are a reminder of the urgency of seeking peaceful solutions and avoiding escalations that could lead to catastrophic consequences for global security.
In a reflective tone, Allison expressed relief at the restraint shown by the United States and Europe in the face of Putin’s nuclear threat, noting that “fortunately, the excellent statecraft of the United States and Europe convinced Putin that this is not a good idea.” ”, at least for now.
You may be interested: The European Parliament accused Putin of murdering the opponent Alexei Navalny and demanded a transparent investigation
Returning for a moment to the just-mentioned missile crisis of 1962, compared to that dark episode in history, in which the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war due to the placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba , just three years after the communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro was established, the current situation poses similar challenges in terms of geopolitical stability and the nuclear threat.
Fortunately, in 1962, the missile crisis was resolved through direct negotiations between US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, with the withdrawal of weapons from Cuba in exchange for a US commitment not to invade the island and the withdrawal of US missiles in Turkey. This diplomatic solution avoided an escalation towards nuclear war and laid the foundations for a stage of détente between the two superpowers. In Allison’s words, “a long period of peace.”
US President John F. Kennedy on the left and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro on the right in a 1962 photo during the missile crisis.
In the current case, the concerted actions of the United States, Europe and even the Chinese regime itself have managed to dissuade Putin from carrying out nuclear attacks against Ukraine, but for how long?
However, the threat remains latent, and it is crucial to find peaceful and lasting solutions to avoid an escalation of the conflict.
One possible way to address Putin’s threat is through international diplomacy. World leaders have committed to direct and constructive talks to address the security concerns of all parties involved. These talks could focus on nuclear disarmament, arms control and promoting regional stability. However, Putin’s pride does not seem to allow him to give in, until he keeps at least some illegally invaded Ukrainian territories to satisfy his nostalgic whim of reviving the extinct Soviet Union.
The Harvard expert suggests that it would be essential to strengthen the verification and compliance mechanisms of international nuclear non-proliferation treaties. This would, in his view, help ensure that all parties meet their commitments and reduce the risk of misuse of such weapons in conflict situations.
Ultimately, preventing nuclear conflict requires a strong commitment from all international actors, especially powers, to promote peace, security and stability around the world. The legacy of the Cuban missile crisis reminds us of the importance of diplomacy and dialogue in preventing nuclear conflict and protecting human well-being.
During the Munich Security Conference, Allison noted the extraordinary duration of nuclear peace since the end of World War II.
“We have entered the 79th year without great power wars since World War II. “This is a long, very long peace, without historical precedents,” said the academic.
Likewise, the professor emphasized the fragility of this peace and the possibility that it may be threatened in the future.
“I think it is not likely to be maintained for the next generation,” he warned.
Professor Graham Allison, leading scholar at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government
In this international context where the nuclear threat looms like a persistent shadow over world peace, the debate on the nuclear arsenal of the great powers and its potential use becomes more relevant every day. The recent expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal to levels that could be considered parity with the United States and Russia, poses a complex scenario for global stability.
This readjustment in the balance of nuclear power introduces what Professor Allison describes as “the nuclear three-body problem,” a dynamic that could require a “radical rethinking across the entire strategic community,” not just in terms of nuclear posture. , but also in the national security of the powers involved.
With the passage of 78 years since nuclear weapons were last used in war and 79 years without great power conflict since World War II, current stability is seen as a historic, if fragile, achievement.
According to Allison, the chances of having maintained this period of peace and non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 “would have been 1,000 to 1.” This period of peace is seen as “an enormous achievement of international statecraft”, highlighting the unlikely repetition of this achievement in future generations.
Allison highlights that Putin’s recent threat is an indicative event that the nuclear problem not only persists, but is far from resolution. The seriousness with which the threat was taken, even imagining “Nuclear Armageddon” scenarios, underscores the ongoing need for dialogue and strategy to avoid escalation into conflict.
Despite the current limited number of weapons states, concerns persist about possible nuclear proliferation. Reference to John Kennedy’s predictions in 1963, which projected up to 30 nuclear states by the 1970s, highlights the success of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, this achievement is also considered fragile and susceptible to pressure, requiring constant vigilance.
The current nuclear balance, marked by the determination of the three parties involved – the United States, China and Russia – to maintain parity, poses a mathematically insoluble challenge, according to Allison. The need to adapt the national security posture in a context where a two-front conflict could be contemplated requires an innovative and cooperative approach that guarantees international peace and stability.
The inclusion of Bill Burns as director of the CIA, recognized as one of the best Putin observers in the United States, offers a powerful perspective on the seriousness of nuclear threats in the present scenario. His assessment of the situation underscores the importance of diplomacy and leadership in crisis management.