“Just one launch, Boris, and Britain is gone,” a Russian state television operator said earlier this week, simulating a simulation of the destruction of Britain and Ireland by nuclear weapons.
The alarming video, which was widely circulated on social media, was quickly criticized in the West as hyperbolic and provocative.
This was the latest case of escalating Russian rhetoric about the possibility of Moscow deploying nuclear weapons in retaliation for Western support for Ukraine. In February, Russian President Vladimir Putin annoyed the world when he put his nuclear forces on high alert, a move that signaled apparent readiness for their deployment.
Last week, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Russian state television: “The danger [of a Russian nuclear strike] is serious, real. And we should not underestimate it. “
Despite the rattling of the sword, let alone Russia’s possession of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, hardly any Western intelligence officials or analysts believe Moscow will carry out the kind of cataclysm described by the broadcaster this week. The real question is whether Putin can resort to using smaller, so-called tactical nuclear weapons to gain an advantage on the battlefield in Ukraine.
“Given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the military failures they have faced so far, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by the potential recourse to tactical nuclear weapons or low-level nuclear weapons. “CIA Director Bill Burns said last month.
But he added that “so far we have not seen much practical evidence of the type of deployment or military dispositions that would heighten this concern.”
Western officials and analysts say Russia believes the cost of using nuclear weapons of any kind is prohibitive and is instead trying to deter the United States and its allies from getting more involved in the war in Ukraine.
“Their hands are full of what is happening in Donbass, they really do not have the strength or time to deal with the escalation of the conflict with NATO or the escalation of the conflict, because they know that we will repel very strongly,” said a European official.
Leonor Tomero, a senior Pentagon official on nuclear policy in the first year of Biden’s rule, said Russia’s use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine would “encourage the whole world” against Russia. If it targets civilians, there will be a “strong push” for the United States to intervene militarily, she added.
“We don’t want them to be wrong,” Tomero said. “We must clarify that this will have devastating consequences.
As Western fears of the threat of a Russian nuclear strike have dissipated somewhat, the United States and its allies have increased deadly aid to Kyiv with less fear of retaliation than Moscow and have begun sending heavier weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks.
In February, the Biden administration commissioned a group called the Tiger Team to make contingency plans for possible risks of escalation, such as the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, a U.S. official said. Since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, Washington has not changed its nuclear position or levels of concern for America or its allies, officials said.
But officials warn that Russia could escalate its tactics in other ways before considering nuclear weapons.
“Obviously we need to be vigilant about the potential use of chemical or biological weapons,” said Adam Schiff, a Democrat who chairs the House Intelligence Committee’s intelligence committee, which returned this week from a trip to Kyiv.
“We need to closely monitor the position of the Russian nuclear forces and make sure that our intelligence agencies are trained for this purpose, so that if anything changes, we will receive warning signals,” he added.
U.S. officials and analysts also do not rule out the possibility that Russia may eventually use short- and medium-range nuclear weapons capable of reaching Ukraine, as its military fails and its conventional forces run out of power in the conflict.
“They have not invested in a diverse arsenal of nuclear weapons in the theater out of boredom. This will come down to calculating the costs and benefits of the Russians, “said Rebecca Heinrichs, a nuclear expert at the Hudson Institute.
Recommended
“The focus now should be on signaling to the Russians that the price will be much higher than anything they think they will benefit from if they use nuclear weapons of any power, even in a large empty field.” she added.
While US officials want Moscow to know that there will be severe consequences from the use of nuclear weapons, part of the deterrence strategy is paradoxically to avoid signaling exactly what the costs would be, said Scott Sagan, a professor of political science at Stanford University. senior Pentagon official.
The latest review of the Biden administration’s nuclear position, which is yet to be published, supports US policy that nuclear weapons will only be used to deter or respond to a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies.
“There’s a lot of planning and thinking behind the scenes,” Sagan said.
“People are not just trying to think in the old style of the Cold War on the zipper,” he added. “They are trying to think about what we could do, which could signal to the Russians that this is unacceptable and extremely dangerous, but to do it in a way that does not cause automatic escalation.
Add Comment