Putin: How will the world react if the 77-year-old Russian president breaks the ‘nuclear taboo’

The international media continues to take seriously the “warnings” of its president from RussiaVladimir Putin on the use nuclear. With the outbreak of war Ukraine To continue, and Russian forces suffer defeats in the areas they have conquered, Spencer Bokatt Lindell of The New York Times check How will the planet react after this development.

The author of the article notes that it has been difficult to ignore these threats in the past two weeks. After all, as he remembers, Putin assured that he is not deceiving.

Bokat Lindell notes that the Ukrainian government, at least, believes him. According to a senior adviser to President Volodymyr Zelensky, the country’s intelligence services believe that there is a “very high” risk that Russia will use the so-called tactical nuclear weapons, the “cousins” of conventional nuclear weapons designed for use in its own battle range. .

US officials stress that the risk remains low, as they have not detected any evidence of nuclear mobilization. But they are much more concerned about this possibility than they were at the start of the conflict, the New York Times reported, and they are beginning to plan for post-strike scenarios. If Putin breaks the 77-year-old’s “nuclear taboo,” how will the world react?

Then the article presents what a group of analysts and politicians have said so far.

“Serious consequences”

In response to Putin’s speech, US President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said that any use of nuclear weapons would have “serious consequences” for Russia, which he “made clear” in private communications with Moscow.

It is noted, of course, that what these consequences will be is not known to the public. One option might be for the United States to respond in kind with a tactical nuclear strike. As Matthew Kronig of the Atlantic Council wrote: “A nuclear response is likely to enhance deterrence of adversaries, reassure allies, and restore global taboos against future use of nuclear weapons by demonstrating that states cannot use nuclear weapons without severe consequences.” He added that Otherwise, “allies and adversaries may be surprised or aware of weakness.”

However, administration officials have said for months that there are almost no scenarios in which the United States will respond with nuclear weapons, and with good reason. As Kroenig notes, while US nuclear retaliation could restore the “nuclear taboo,” it could also start a cycle of mutual escalation that would culminate in full-scale nuclear war.

reactions more likely

Other less distant military responses, such as using conventional weapons against the area from which the nuclear strike was launched or arming Ukrainian forces to do so themselves.

Retired General and CIA Director David Petraeus recently went so far as to speculate that the Biden administration would lead NATO in a collective military effort to “neutralize every Russian conventional force we can see and locate on the battlefield in Ukraine as well as in Crimea and “every ship in the Black Sea.” .

Any attack on Russian forces would still be considered an attack on Russia, “but it would be kind of a half-step, if you will,” said Hans Christensen, director of the nuclear intelligence program at the Federation of American Scientists. He explained, “You can still say to the Russians, ‘We’re not doing this to threaten Russia, like that, but to tell you that if you keep doing that, the next stage is going to be more serious.'”

The danger of World War III

However, even a conventional military response—which, it is worth noting, would likely be conducted without congressional approval—would lead to an immediate conflict between Russia and NATO, “and thus carries the risk of World War III, with Armageddon being another scenario in the end”, As Andreas Kloth says in Bloomberg. “Putin can conclude that the United States is not ready to respond with nuclear weapons and launch more nuclear strikes,” he says.

Russian officials seem to believe they can use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine without the risk of military retaliation from NATO.

“Foreign and European demagogues will not disappear in the nuclear apocalypse,” Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Putin’s Security Council, wrote in a Telegram post. “Therefore, they will swallow up the use of any weapon in the current conflict,” he said, recalling the New York Times article.

new weapons

Bokat Lindell points out that calling for a “nuclear apocalypse” and inaction is not the only way Ukraine’s allies might react.

Ukraine has received tens of billions of dollars in military aid, including $15 billion in weapons and equipment from the United States.

However, after Putin brought up the nuclear option last week, Zelensky called on allies to supply his army with tanks for its attacks in the east and south, as well as air defenses to protect civilian infrastructure from Russian bombing. If Putin carries out his threat well, these allies may feel more pressure to comply with Zelensky’s request, Bokat Lendl notes.

and other penalties

Despite the tougher sanctions imposed on Russia now, Eliot Cohen, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of International Studies, argues that Ukraine’s allies still have economic stakes up their sleeve. He says the United States, in particular, could impose unlimited secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with Russia and seize about $300 billion that Russia has in its foreign accounts. Ukraine’s allies are also considering capping Russian oil prices to increase pressure on the Russian economy.

Some analysts believe that the plan to impose a ceiling on oil prices will succeed only with the cooperation of large oil buyers such as China and India, which, like most of the world’s 195 countries, did not participate in imposing sanctions on Russia.

If Putin breaks the “nuclear taboo,” that could change: “The whole world will stop,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear expert at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

What will Putin do?

But given the strength of Putin’s determination so far, some analysts doubt that massive sanctions and military support will be enough to sway him or restore the nuclear taboo.

“Moscow will survive the use of a nuclear weapon, show that deterrence is pointless, and position itself to use nuclear weapons again in the future,” Dan Gray, vice president of the think tank, wrote in The National Interest. Institute for Public Policy Research. Putin’s fortunes at home are sure to improve. He would claim to be the Russian leader who stood up to the West and saved it by using a nuclear weapon to defend the homeland.

What will happen to the peace talks?

Although a Russian nuclear attack would be shocking, the strategic benefit would never be certain. Last week, the Institute for the Study of War concluded that at best, the use of multiple tactical nuclear weapons would simply “freeze” the front lines of war, allowing the Kremlin to keep the Ukrainian territory it now controls. The institute concluded that this would not “allow Russian forces to occupy all of Ukraine.”

For many high-ranking Russian officials and members of the elite, if not for Putin himself, “to enter into talks now with the gains Russia has already made would be a completely logical course of action that would not necessarily mean defeat,” wrote Tatiana Stanovaya. for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

What can a ceasefire achieve?

If he’s right, there may be a chance of a nuclear strike being avoided in the first place, and some believe the Ukrainians should at least try to capitalize on it. “A ceasefire will help de-escalate the situation and prevent further escalation,” wrote Christopher Shaves, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Western capitals should at least signal to Ukrainian leaders that their prospects for reclaiming all of their land may not be as bright as they hoped,” he says.

Zelensky said last week that Ukraine was “ready for dialogue with Russia,” but added, “only with another president of Russia.” For many, his determination is more than just defense: “Russian atrocities on the Ukrainian territory they control are well documented,” wrote Daniel Fried, the former US ambassador to Poland. “Murder, rape, kidnapping of children, the erasure of Ukrainian culture is the textbook. This reality should place a great obstacle to any arrangement that surrenders the lands or the Ukrainian people to Russia.”

Hard to predict…

It is hard to predict whether a nuclear strike will break or strengthen this diplomatic stalemate. In the face of calls to do whatever it takes to prevent further bloodshed and nuclear escalation, Ukrainians could reasonably argue that a settlement with Russia would justify a new imperial strategy for Putin and others to reconsider.

Andrei Yermak, a senior adviser to Zelensky, wrote in The Atlantic: “Every aspiring dictator will seek nuclear weapons, and every responsible non-nuclear country will seek nuclear weapons for self-defense.” Non-proliferation agreements will not work. “Nuclear wars will result in millions of victims,” ​​he predicts.

Alternatively, the world could view Russia’s violation of the “nuclear taboo” as the horrific and desperate culmination of its nationalist decline under Putin. He would become a truly global pariah, and you would lose the reputation he might have saved through de-escalation.

David Von Drehle wrote in David Von Drehle’s article: The Washington Post. He notes that “the premise of the negotiations is that the deal could allow Russia to contract rather than explode.”