- Joined
- Mar 22, 2015
- Location
- Untied States of America
Nuclear weapons have been lurking in the background since the start of the Ukraine crisis on February 24. President Vladimir Putin has increasingly relied on nuclear threats in an attempt to prevent foreign intervention and signal to the United States and NATO that he is committed to winning the war in Ukraine.
For example, on September 21, he stated, “Our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff. . . . Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.” To deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Biden administration has been forced to find a delicate balance of avoiding overt threats accompanied with private deterrence signals. One of the main reasons for this is to maintain NATO unity; some allies would prefer to see explicit threats against nuclear weapons use, and others would view such threats as escalatory and dangerous.
Q1: What is the role of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine?
A1: Putin has referred to nuclear weapons on at least three occasions since the invasion of Ukraine. On February 27, he ordered Russia’s nuclear forces be put on “special combat readiness,” leading some experts and news outlets to interpret this as “high alert” nuclear status, although in practice there were no noticeable changes to Russia’s nuclear forces. The second occasion was his September 21 speech, given in response to perceived nuclear threats from NATO. In the same speech, Putin announced the partial mobilization of up to 300,000 reservists, indicating Russia was losing ground in Ukraine and is being increasingly drawn into a quagmire. More recently in an October 3 address, Putin argued that the United States was the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war. “By the way, they created a precedent,” he ventured in an aside. This weak analogy neglects nearly 77 years of the nuclear taboo.
The United States and NATO have been noticeably restrained in mentioning nuclear weapons or making any nuclear threats. NATO’s nuclear doctrine, like the United States’, relies on strategic ambiguity and says, “The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.” Thus far, NATO has been successful at deterring Russia from directly attacking a NATO member and from using weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine. Maintaining that deterrence and alliance unity should be a priority for NATO going forward.
Q2: Why might Putin use nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
A2: As Russia suffered battlefield losses and defeats, Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling is an effort to convince NATO he would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to deter NATO from directly intervening in the crisis or escalating the war. To be clear, Putin wants the West to think he would use nuclear weapons. That does not necessarily mean he would, but it does not mean such threats should be taken lightly. Russia’s nuclear strategy can be described as one of “escalation management, seeking to dissuade, intimidate, or achieve de-escalation at key transition points and early phases of conflict, from peacetime through large-scale and nuclear war.” Russia would use nuclear weapons in the face of existential threats or if the survival of the state was at risk. While this might seem a far cry from the current situation in Ukraine, if Russia absorbs parts of Ukraine through undemocratic elections or if Ukraine threatens to seize Russian territory, this could be perceived as grounds for escalation in the Kremlin. Prior to such threats, however, Putin might turn to nuclear weapons to demonstrate resolve and a commitment to winning the war in Ukraine.
Continue here
www.csis.org
For example, on September 21, he stated, “Our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff. . . . Those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind rose can turn around.” To deter Putin from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Biden administration has been forced to find a delicate balance of avoiding overt threats accompanied with private deterrence signals. One of the main reasons for this is to maintain NATO unity; some allies would prefer to see explicit threats against nuclear weapons use, and others would view such threats as escalatory and dangerous.
Q1: What is the role of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine?
A1: Putin has referred to nuclear weapons on at least three occasions since the invasion of Ukraine. On February 27, he ordered Russia’s nuclear forces be put on “special combat readiness,” leading some experts and news outlets to interpret this as “high alert” nuclear status, although in practice there were no noticeable changes to Russia’s nuclear forces. The second occasion was his September 21 speech, given in response to perceived nuclear threats from NATO. In the same speech, Putin announced the partial mobilization of up to 300,000 reservists, indicating Russia was losing ground in Ukraine and is being increasingly drawn into a quagmire. More recently in an October 3 address, Putin argued that the United States was the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war. “By the way, they created a precedent,” he ventured in an aside. This weak analogy neglects nearly 77 years of the nuclear taboo.
The United States and NATO have been noticeably restrained in mentioning nuclear weapons or making any nuclear threats. NATO’s nuclear doctrine, like the United States’, relies on strategic ambiguity and says, “The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.” Thus far, NATO has been successful at deterring Russia from directly attacking a NATO member and from using weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine. Maintaining that deterrence and alliance unity should be a priority for NATO going forward.
Q2: Why might Putin use nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
A2: As Russia suffered battlefield losses and defeats, Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling is an effort to convince NATO he would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to deter NATO from directly intervening in the crisis or escalating the war. To be clear, Putin wants the West to think he would use nuclear weapons. That does not necessarily mean he would, but it does not mean such threats should be taken lightly. Russia’s nuclear strategy can be described as one of “escalation management, seeking to dissuade, intimidate, or achieve de-escalation at key transition points and early phases of conflict, from peacetime through large-scale and nuclear war.” Russia would use nuclear weapons in the face of existential threats or if the survival of the state was at risk. While this might seem a far cry from the current situation in Ukraine, if Russia absorbs parts of Ukraine through undemocratic elections or if Ukraine threatens to seize Russian territory, this could be perceived as grounds for escalation in the Kremlin. Prior to such threats, however, Putin might turn to nuclear weapons to demonstrate resolve and a commitment to winning the war in Ukraine.
Continue here
Deterring Nuclear Weapons Use in Ukraine
President Vladimir Putin has increasingly relied on nuclear threats in an attempt to prevent foreign intervention and signal to the United States and NATO that he is committed to winning the war in Ukraine.
Last edited: