Putin's Nuclear Threats: Rhetoric or Reality?

[Social Media]

 

Vladimir Putin’s recent remarks on Russia’s nuclear doctrine have raised alarms, suggesting a potential shift in how Moscow might use its atomic arsenal. While he didn’t directly reference Ukraine, Putin’s insinuation that a strike from a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear-armed nation could be seen as a “joint attack” has fueled debate. The Kremlin’s carefully crafted rhetoric seems designed to keep the West guessing, and it may have just done that.

 

New NATO chief Mark Rutte was quick to condemn Putin’s statements at the Russian Security Council on September 25, labeling them “reckless and irresponsible.” Rutte also reassured that despite the provocative language, it didn’t necessarily mean the world was closer to a nuclear conflict. Nevertheless, Putin’s subtle warnings, which have been amplified by Russian propagandists, now appear to be supported by a formal change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine.

 

Mark Galeotti, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out how the evolving nature of warfare plays into this narrative, especially with the increasing role of drones. “It’s a reflection of how war is changing and the importance of the drone, which in the future could carry a nuclear warhead,” Galeotti told *Newsweek*. He also mentioned that Russia may be preparing for a post-ceasefire scenario in which they seek to freeze the frontline in Ukraine.

 

Russia’s nuclear doctrine has always been ambiguous. It permits the use of atomic weapons in the event of first strikes or attacks that present an existential threat to Russia. However, what exactly constitutes an “existential threat” is not clearly defined. Putin recently elaborated that Russia would consider using nuclear weapons if there were signs of a massive missile, aircraft, or drone assault on its territory, calling such a situation a “critical threat” to its sovereignty.

 

Galeotti believes this is a thinly veiled threat aimed at Ukraine. “This notion that a non-nuclear state that is being supported and backed by a nuclear state could trigger a nuclear response is a pretty transparent way of saying, ‘if Ukraine launches some kind of major offensive, we reserve unto ourselves the right to be able to go nuclear in response,’” he said.

 

Putin’s nuclear posturing coincides with the failed test of Russia’s RS-Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of striking targets thousands of miles away. Despite this failure, Putin had previously boasted in June about Russia’s stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller and designed for use on the battlefield. Tactical nuclear weapons have been dismissed as having little battlefield advantage in the Ukraine war. Moreover, Western satellite technology would likely provide early warning of any nuclear preparation by Russia.

 

Dan Caldwell, professor emeritus at Pepperdine University, explained, “Moving nuclear warheads to mate with missiles is a logistical problem and would provide western intelligence agencies with firm evidence that Putin is serious about his threat.”

 

Peter Rutland, a professor of Russian studies at Wesleyan University, pointed out that Putin’s statements don’t necessarily represent a significant shift in doctrine. “Russia claims that the war is going well for them, with incremental territorial gains in Donbas and a harsh winter looming in Ukraine given the damaged energy infrastructure,” Rutland noted.

 

Meanwhile, military expert David Silbey suggested that Putin’s rhetoric is likely aimed at deterring the West from further aiding Ukraine’s long-range strikes. “Putin doesn’t want to destroy Ukraine; he wants to conquer it,” Silbey said. “Russia is winning, currently, and there’s no need for him to escalate drastically.”

 

While the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out, analysts agree that it remains a last resort, especially if Russia feels it is on the winning side. As Mariana Budjeryn of the Project on Managing the Atom posited, nuclear weapons might come into play when Russia has the upper hand, drawing parallels to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings during World War II. “Continued resistance from Kyiv would be suddenly rendered foolhardy, if not suicidal,” she wrote.

 

For now, much of Russia’s nuclear posturing may be tied to gauging reactions from the West, particularly the U.S. The outcome of the U.S. presidential election could influence Putin’s next steps. As Mark Galeotti summarized, “He is a rational actor, but he knows full well that his appetite for risk is probably a little greater than that of the West.”

 

Based on a report from Newsweek 2024-10-07

 

 

 

[Tug]

There’s certainly a possibility but the response is a certainty and that knowledge keeps him in check.

[wombat]

Keep prodding him and find out 

 

Edited 17 minutes ago by wombat