The verbal and political escalation of the war in Ukraine, including the annexation of territories that Russia does not control or has ceased to control in the last forty-eight hours, has the world on edge about the possibility of an imminent nuclear attack. It is logical and it is exactly the reason why the Kremlin insists on this idea: to terrorize not only Ukraine, which is risking its existence, but the West. At the end of the day – they think of Moscow – neither the Europeans nor the Americans are so into the matter and the mere idea of a conflict with medium and long-range nuclear missiles should influence every move and every decision.
That every day we are closer to the use of a “tactical” nuclear weapon, that is, one limited in its effects and reserved for a specific military action, seems obvious and is bad news. The fact that we are seeing it as “a lesser evil” is already an indication that it does not seem impossible to us and that, of course, we are preparing for the moment and for the corresponding reaction. Now, that NATO contemplates this scenario, that it even speculates in public and in private about how to act accordingly, does not imply that said nuclear attack will happen. Simply, alarms have been activated that were previously completely silent.
To reassure the most pessimistic, it should be remembered that this specific nuclear use is not something to be taken for granted and that, even if it occurs, it does not imply, as some in Russia repeat, the start of a nuclear World War III. Fortunately, we are not, as in the fifties or sixties, in the worst of the Cold War, when all countries had a protocol of action in the face of a nuclear attack that was studied even in schools. Although the nuclear threat is there and it makes no sense to ignore it, we are going to review five scenarios in which said threat would never be carried out.
[El checheno Kadyrov promete enviar a sus tres hijos adolescentes a luchar en la guerra de Ucrania]
Conventional weapons are enough
Putin reminded us all that he had nuclear weapons from the very moment of the announcement of the “special military operation” in Ukraine. In case he had forgotten us. He wouldn’t like to have to use them, but, well, let’s see how you behave. Now, that threat was a deterrent. What Putin wanted was that The West would stand by while he took over Ukraine’s share that he fancied The problem, for him, is that he has not succeeded: NATO is stronger now than it was on February 24, and the little land that its troops managed to wrest from Ukraine during the first months of the conflict is being lost by leaps and bounds.
In short, to speak now of nuclear weapons, when Russia is being outflanked in the field of conventional weapons, is no longer a dissuasive question but of pure military interest. If Putin believes that the use of one, two or three nuclear weapons will give him an advantage in his war, he will use them. Another thing is that they really give you an advantage. That is what is not clear. In fact, most opinions tend to think the opposite: the work that Russia has to do is on the conventional plane. Has to train more troops and coordinate them bettermaximize your weaponry, and improve your lines of communication and supply.
Russian nuclear submarine
In the meantime, you can risk leave Ukraine like a radioactive solar and that this radioactivity affects their own country in the process, but it would not be a defining act when it comes to winning the war. Upside down. The option that Putin continues to manage is that of a conventional victory based on perseverance, the number of troops and the possible surrender of the West when he feels the cold and possibly hunger this winter. If Russia manages to stop the bleeding and defend the borders of its four new regions with some success, the conflict will stagnate for years, but it will not make the nuclear leap. What happens is that, right now, Russia is not in a position to defend anythingmuch less looking for the limit of the administrative borders of these provinces.
A peace agreement for territories
We’ve been hearing this since day one of the war, and it’s just been resurrected by Elon Musk, but it’s obviously a Ukrainian decision fraught with drawbacks. The Russian Federation has annexed four provinces, but has not specified their geographical limits and I suspect that this is for a reason. It is a step without turning back because now the Kremlin cannot retrace its steps and say that it is giving up what it considers its own territory. At the negotiating table, there will always be a Russian Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia. Another thing is that they live with their Ukrainian equivalents. In fact, it is the basis of the 2015 Minsk agreements in Donbas.
[Zelenski alardea del avance ucraniano en Jersón tras humillar a Putin en Limán]
Would Zelensky accept that? No. First, because those provinces are legally Ukrainian. Second, because he is a few months away from recovering them militarily. Another thing is that he receives pressure from NATO to stop the attacks and remain in an operational pause. On the one hand, giving in to Putin, allowing him to understand what has been a complete defeat as a partial victory, is extremely dangerous. On the other hand, Putin is the first to know what has happened. Enough not to try again. The problem is always the same: Russia tends to constant lies and imperialism. No one assures us that, even if we cede part of these territories, peace will last more than three or four years.
A regimen caught with pins
Now, in those three or four years things can happen. All dictators, and much more those who play war games with their armies, tend to have unhappy endings. There is no reason to think that Putin will be an exception. We know that Mussolini Y Hitler They saved their lives by a hair’s breadth. Ceausescu or Gaddafi, not even that. They all seemed to have the unanimous support of their soldiers and their people, but this was not the case. Putin can kill and gag whoever he wants, but the reality is seen by everyone: there are hundreds of thousands of russians fighting an absurd war and losing itthe damage to the army itself is immense and, if there is someone who is gratuitously endangering the territorial integrity of the Motherland, it is Putin in the first person.
A crowd attends Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech after announcing Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian territories
EFE \ EPA
How long will they tolerate it? Imagine that Putin decides to initiate a nuclear action knowing that this will cause the death and destruction of a large part of his army when NATO reacts. Would that army just be willing to die just because I don’t know what ideologue has become entangled in the historical roots of Novarrosiya? Putin’s position, right now, cannot be easy internally. Every autocrat relies on fear to stay in power, but you must be very careful with that fear. It changes direction quite easily.
China is tired of the little games
the cold blood of Xi Jinping it is proverbial. He has managed to remain an ally of Russia, helping him financially as much as possible, but at the same time making it clear that he doesn’t like the idea of invading other countries. Basically, because in the Pacific the ownership of thousands of loose islands is being disputed and sometimes you are claiming something that you think is yours and other times, it is the other who claims what legally belongs to you. China has the Taiwan issue on the table, but otherwise has made territorial integrity its flag in foreign policy. That, and the refusal to use nuclear weapons rather than in defense against another attack by a nuclear power.
Xi Jinping and Putin shake hands during a meeting in the Kremlin in 2015.
Gthree (AP)
Russia needs China if it does not want to succumb economically. All the propaganda of multilateralism is based on the assumption that one of these new powers will be Beijing. Perhaps Xi is finding out what a deal with Putin is worth and what kind of partner he is, although she probably already knew that before. If the goal of the Kremlin is to start a war that can end life on the planet, perhaps that is in the interest of the two most populous countries: China, but also India. Both, by the way, nuclear powers. If his two leaders make it clear to Putin that nuclear escalation is his red line, he will have to settle for seeing his troops withdraw from Ukraine as they withdrew from Afghanistan in the 1980s.
A nuclear attack without global escalation
Here we enter unknown territory and we better not find out how to get out of it. Now, it seems clear from the words of the Polish government and former CIA director David Petraeus that NATO’s reaction to a nuclear attack on Ukrainian territory would be conventional. Given what the West has achieved using its surplus weapons, it is easy to see that, even with a conventional attack, NATO can wipe out all Russian troops in Ukraine and sink the Black Sea fleet, apart from strangling Kaliningrad and threatening proper Russian territory.
Nuclear logic dictates that such a reaction is followed by a full-fledged nuclear attack on NATO territory by Russia. Can be. It may also be that Russia prefers to survive. After all, as Sting sang, “Russians love their children too.” The start of a nuclear war against NATO will probably mean the end of NATO and much of the planet, but of course it would mean the extermination of Russia. Is Lisichansk worth all this? Is control of Melitopol worth destroying centuries of history? That said, better not find out.
