The bleaker things look on the battlefield in Ukraine, the more often Russia talks about nuclear bombs. Western governments still think it’s a bluff, but they are nonetheless examining possible scenarios.
Is this
what a victorious army looks like? "Hooray," cries a lone voice,
sounding as though the man is trying to muster up some courage on this
depressingly gray October day. The smell of alcohol lingers over the crowd at
just before 11 a.m. outside the draft office in Balashikha, a drab suburb east
of Moscow.
"Louder!"
slurs a man, followed up by a rather lackadaisical reply. "My God,"
groans a young reservist. "Where am I?" But most of the men remain
silent as they wait to be sent to war. Or they try to comfort their crying wives
and mothers. Scenes like the one in Balashikha are currently playing out in
hundreds of different places in Russia.
Because
Vladimir Putin's "special operation" in Ukraine has turned into a
military disaster, the Russian president has ordered a mobilization. Men who
already performed their military service years ago are being summoned to the
front: fathers, cancer patients and even people who are half blind. Just a few
days ago, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that mainly well-trained
forces would be drafted. But the scene in Balashikha suggests something
altogether different. Some of those gathered here still have the soft skin of
youth, but other men have sunken cheeks and deep circles under their eyes, as
if they have years of hard labor behind them.
It seems
like a desperate array. When Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, he
promised a swift victory, a campaign in which Kyiv would fall quickly and the
bygone glory of the Soviet empire would return. To the surprise of many in
Russia, however, the war has largely revealed how dilapidated their own army
is. Indeed, they are in retreat on numerous fronts. The situation has become so
precarious for Putin that he has resorted to the ultimate threat: "When
the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use
all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people," Putin
said in announcing the mobilization two and a half weeks ago. "This is not
a bluff."
For now,
at least, the last sentence is subject to doubt. If you talk to Western
politicians and top officials, most assume that Putin's nuclear threat is
primarily that: a threat. So far, according to German government sources, the
Russian president has not followed up his words with action, such as mounting
warheads on missiles. That’s the U.S. government’s conclusion as well. Putin's
main goal is to divide the West, says Heather Conley, head of the German
Marshall Fund, an influential Washington-based think tank. But will things stay
that way?
Biden
Speaks of Possible "Armageddon"
The West
is dealing with a Kremlin ruler who is no longer fighting just for prestige and
spheres of influence, but for his sheer survival. Putin will have to fear for
his hold on power if he loses the war in Ukraine, which is part of what makes
the current situation so dangerous. When former Chancellor Angela Merkel made
one of her rare public appearances last week, she issued an urgent warning to
take Putin's threats seriously.
U.S.
President Joe Biden went even further on Thursday and compared the current
situation with the nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union
in Cuba 60 years ago. "We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since
Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis," he said at a fundraising event for
the Democrats. Back then, the Soviet Union stationed missiles with nuclear
warheads in Cuba that could reach the U.S. within minutes. American President
John F. Kennedy defused the situation together with his adversary Nikita
Khrushchev.
That
Biden is now talking publicly about "Armageddon" is the clearest
signal yet from Washington about how seriously the U.S. government is taking
the threat of nuclear escalation. He knows Putin pretty well, Biden said
Thursday. And the Kremlin leader was not kidding when he talked about the
potential use of tactical nuclear weapons, as well as chemical and biological
weapons, as the Russian military struggles in Ukraine. "We are trying to
figure out, what is Putin’s off-ramp?" Biden said in reference to escalation.
For the
first time in years, scenarios are once again being played out in Washington,
Berlin and Paris about how a nuclear catastrophe might play out. A vernacular
is once again being used that seemed to have disappeared into the history books
along with the Cold War: first strike, radioactive fallout, deterrence. Western
military officials are also discussing how Putin might deploy his nuclear
forces. In "war games" that are also being played out in strict
secrecy at the German Defense Ministry in Berlin, strategists are largely
ruling out an attack with strategic nuclear weapons capable of wiping out
entire cities. The consensus is that an attack on that level would be a
kamikaze mission for Putin. Experts also doubt whether the Russian military
would carry out a kind of "Nero order" from the Kremlin without
resisting.
The
Threat from Putin
Russia's
nuclear arsenal in 2022*
Table
with 4 columns and 10 rows. Currently displaying rows 1 to 10.
Nuclear
weapons Warheads Launchers Range
Strategic
warheads
Intercontinental
ballistic missiles 1,185 306 launchers up
to 16,000 km
Submarine-launched
ballistic missiles 800 10 submarines up to 11,000 km
Nuclear-armed
bombers 580 68 bombers up to 2,800 km
Tactical/non-strategic
nuclear weapons
Nuclear-armed
fighter bombers 500 300 fighter jets up to 2,000 km
Land-based
nuclear weapons 90 164 launchers up to 2,500 km
Naval
nuclear weapons 935 Unknown up
to 2,500 km
Defensive
nuclear weapons
Missile
defense and others 387 886 up
to 300 km
*
deployed and in reserve; not counting 1,500 retired warheads awaiting
dismantling
S Sources: CSIS, estimate of the Federation of
American Scientists
The
conceivable alternative would be for Putin to detonate a low-yield, tactical
nuclear bomb in the Arctic or over the Black Sea. Or he could deploy one to
take out a Ukrainian military base. Even if it didn’t turn the tide on the
battlefield, such an operation could make it clear that Putin is determined to
do anything – and strengthen the voices of those who are calling for
negotiations with Putin at any price. In Germany, in particular, where part of
the population has grown up with the fear of nuclear war, doubts could grow
over whether Ukraine is important enough to take such an existential risk. Back
in April, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned in an interview with DER SPIEGEL: "There cannot be a
nuclear war."
The
threatening nuclear gestures are primarily directed at Europe and specifically
at the Germans, believes Christoph Heusgen, Merkel's former security policy
adviser and the new head of the influential Munich Security Conference.
"It's part of Russia's intimidation strategy." From Heusgen's point
of view, it would be extremely dangerous if the Germans allowed themselves to
be ruffled by the strategy. He says the greatest threat comes from Putin when
he believes he can exploit the weakness of others and cross red lines with
impunity.
Heusgen
has been pushing for weeks for the Europeans, in a consortium of sorts, to
supply Ukraine with modern Leopard 2 tanks, which Kyiv could use to push the
Russian army back even further. So far, though, Scholz has refused, which
hasn't just triggered frustration withing Germany's governing coalition, but
also disgruntlement in Washington.
Americans
Warn of "Catastrophic Consequences"
The
Americans aren’t saying anything bad about the Germans publicly, but behind the
scenes, they make no secret of their disappointment. The White House has been
especially irritated by the fact that the Chancellery in Berlin has been acting
as though the Americans are also skeptical about the delivery of battle tanks.
"The White House is starting to get upset with Scholz for hanging the tank
debate around our necks, even though we've made it perfectly clear that we're
not holding the Germans back," a top U.S. official said a few days ago.
Biden
believes that only strength will keep Putin from going to extremes. Jake
Sullivan, the U.S. president's national security adviser, recently warned of
"catastrophic consequences" if Putin were to actually use nuclear
weapons. No active military official wants to speak openly about what those
consequences might be. But among experts, a massive U.S. conventional strike is
considered likely if Putin were to detonate a tactical nuclear weapon. Earlier
this week, former CIA head David Petraeus described quite concretely what an
American response might look like. The former general believes a devastating
U.S. military strike on the Russians' Black Sea fleet is conceivable. Military
sources say there is also talk of further arming the Ukrainians with additional
missile launchers or even medium-range missiles. If this went hand in hand with
the provision of significantly more targeting information by U.S. intelligence
agencies, the scenario goes, the Ukrainians could inflict even more painful
casualties on the Russian invaders than they have so far.
Ben
Hodges, who served as commander of the U.S. Army in Europe until a few years
ago, foresees a massive U.S. conventional response. He says that the response
would be precisely tailored to Russian action, but that it would be destructive
enough to send a clear message to Moscow. In recent days, other military
officials and experts have floated the specific idea of immediately destroying
the launch site of the Russian nuclear missile. This threat alone, they
believe, could have a deterrent effect. "Putin doesn’t push the nuclear
button himself. The commander who does it knows that 10 minutes after he does
so, he's dead," says Munich Security Conference head Heusgen.
No
Direct Line Between Washington and Moscow
One
important reason the Cold War didn't turn into a hot war was that the U.S. and
the Soviet Union threatened each other with nuclear apocalypse. "Mutual
assured destruction," or MAD for short, was, paradoxically, the world's
guarantee of survival for decades. After all, the first to press the button would
be the second to die.
Today,
that constellation is a bit more complicated. Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO
and is thus not under the protection of the alliance's mutual defense pact. But
a retaliatory strike by the Americans after a Russian nuclear attack would make
NATO a direct party to the war. No one can predict the spiral of escalation
that might then be set in motion. Indeed, for the first time in 60 years, fears
of nuclear annihilation are once again hanging over the world.
Back
then, in October 1962, the world was on the verge of doom because the Soviet
deployment in Cuba. The situation was so precarious that bomber pilots at the
Ramstein Air Base in Germany slept overnight on the airfield so that they could
take off within minutes and drop their nuclear bombs over Soviet cities. The
situation was defused only because both U.S. President John F. Kennedy and
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev were willing to compromise – and, at the same
time, Robert Kennedy, the U.S. president's brother, engaged in secret diplomacy
with Moscow to prevent the worst from happening.
Backed
Up Against the Wall
By all
accounts, there is no reliable connection between Putin and the White House.
And unlike Khrushchev, the current Kremlin leader has his back to the wall. His
army is losing on a broad front, with the Ukrainians advancing in the south of
the country in the region around Kherson. Of the four Ukrainian regions that
Russia has claimed, but does not fully control, Kherson is of particularly
importance, both strategically and symbolically. For one, it is the only
territorial capital Russia has captured since its invasion in February, and for
another, it is the only bridgehead on the west bank of the Dnieper River. The
fall of Kherson would be a devastating defeat for Putin. But it has become more
likely after Ukrainian artillery damaged bridges along the Dnieper, largely
cutting off Russian supply lines.
And it's
not only in the south, but also in the northeast of Ukraine that the Russian
army has been forced to retreat. After hard fighting, Russia recently
surrendered Lyman, an important railroad junction in the northern Donetsk
region. Since then, Ukrainian troops have also been advancing toward the
Luhansk region. These are defeats that cannot be glossed over – even with the
best propaganda. At the beginning of April, the Kremlin was still trying to
sugarcoat the withdrawal from the area around Kyiv as a "gesture of
goodwill" and the army's flight from Kharkiv in September as a
"regrouping." But now the Kremlin is running out of language to make
the situation look better, and displeasure within the Putin regime is beginning
to leak out.
Two men
in particular have been particularly vocal in their critique of the Russian
military's leadership: Chechen ruler Ramzan Kadyrov and military entrepreneur
Yevgeny Prigozhin. Both are active in Ukraine: Kadyrov has deployed Chechen
units of the National Guard, and Prigozhin controls the Wagner group. In a
sense, they are both partners and competitors of the Russian Army.
Kadyrov
raged that Alexander Lapin, the commander in charge of Lyman, is "a
loser" and lamented that the heads of Russia's general staff are covering
up for him.
"All
these jerk-offs should be sent to the front lines with sub-machine guns,
barefoot," Prigozhin affirmed.
Criticism
of Russian Army Is Now Tolerated
Some
have begun wondering whether Defense Minister Shoigu, with whom Putin has gone
on vacation several times in the past, has fallen out of favor. Until recently,
criticism of Shoigu was taboo because of his closeness to the president, and
any criticism of him might come off as a critique of Putin himself. Now, Putin
has even promoted army critic Kadyrov to the rank of colonel general. And
although it doesn’t grant him greater influence, it does show that openly
attacking the military's top brass is now permitted among Putin’s elite.
The
direct attack by Andrei Kartapolov, chairman of the Duma's defense committee
and Shoigu's deputy, on the Defense Ministry did come as a surprise though. He
said the military’s top brass had been more open about defeats against the
Germans in 1941 than the army is today about its setbacks in Ukraine.
Many in
the West fear that Putin may end up feeling he has no other choice but to use a
nuclear strike to prevent defeat. That he could escalate the situation out of
weakness.
The
seriousness with which the Americans are taking the threat is evident in their
public warning to the Ukrainians not to push things too far: The New York Times
reported this week that "parts of the Ukrainian government" are
believed to be behind the assassination attempt on Darya Dugina, the daughter
of Alexander Dugin, the mastermind of Russian ultra-nationalists and an ardent
supporter of the attack on Ukraine. Washington obviously wants to make it clear
to Kyiv that it shouldn’t give Moscow any reason to make further threats.
The
rhetoric being thrown around in Moscow is growing wilder by the day. Is it to
prepare the ground for action? Dmitry Medvedev, Putin's deputy on the Russian
Security Council and a lover of pithy slogans, has discussed the use of
"the worst weapon" against Ukraine on his Telegram channel. He
concluded that NATO would simply accept it. "They will swallow the use of
any weapon in the current conflict," he wrote. Talking heads on Russian
state television also speak frequently and with seeming pleasure about the
nuclear option. At times in the tone of a macabre joke, like when presenter
Olga Skabeyeva quipped that the Queen's funeral, attended by dozens of Western
leaders including Biden, would have made a worthwhile target for a nuclear
missile. At others as a gloomy doomsday scenario: Either the Donbas remains
under Russian control or there will be a nuclear war, as stated by Margarita
Simonjan, the head of the propaganda channel RT.
Nuclear
Weapons Wouldn't Help Putin Militarily
One
argument against the use of nuclear weapons is that Putin has by no means
exhausted his non-nuclear escalation options. For example, he could expand his
"partial mobilization." He could also try to force recalcitrant
dictator Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus to participate in the war. He could
also move to destroy Ukraine's civilian infrastructure. Sergei Mironov, the
head of an opposition party loyal to the Kremlin, declared in the Duma this
week, "let's destroy the entire infrastructure," including power
plants and bridges. Putin could also attack the government quarter in Kyiv with
precision weapons.
Furthermore,
an attack in Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons probably wouldn't turn the
tide militarily. It would primarily be intended to intimidate – to force Kyiv
to the negotiating table, for example. But President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has no
intention of negotiating with Putin, and has even legally underpinned that
refusal with a decree.
It is
part of the logic of military conflicts that they can no longer be controlled
even by those who set them in motion. One of the most dangerous moments of the
Cuban missile crisis was the day a Soviet missile shot down an American U-2
reconnaissance plane over Cuba, an attack that had not been authorized by
Khrushchev. What if Putin himself becomes a driven by his pseudo-religious
rhetoric?
When he
celebrated the annexation of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhya
regions to Russia last Friday in the Kremlin's gleaming white St. George's
Hall, the enemy was no longer NATO or the alleged "Nazis" in Kyiv, it
was much older. Putin portrayed the war as an eternal clash of civilizations,
an end-time battle of the Russian world against Western "Satanists."
Isn't every means permissible in such a battle?
Can
China Bring Putin To His Senses?
Some in
the West are betting that China can bring the Russian president to his senses.
"If nuclear war breaks out, the whole world will be the victim," says
Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, a think
tank in Beijing that is linked to the ruling party. "China rejects any use
of nuclear weapons." When asked how the China could help prevent such a
scenario, Gao said: "I assure you that the channels of communication
between China and Russia are open. China will continue to exercise quiet
diplomacy."
Putin
visited Beijing a few weeks before the start of the Ukraine war. At the summit
with state and party leader Xi Jinping, the two countries assured each other of
their "boundless friendship." It is still unclear to this day whether
Putin took the opportunity to inform Xi of the impending invasion. Beijing, for
its part, disputes that it was ever informed. What is certain is that the war
has put Xi in an uncomfortable position. On the one hand, he needs Russia in
his power struggle with the United States. On the other, Xi isn’t keen to sit
in the same boat with a loser like Putin. The Kremlin leader is providing the
best example right now of a potentate choking on his own appetite for power.
"No
one has defended the invasion to me," says Scott Kennedy of the U.S. think
tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Kennedy is the
first senior U.S. policy analyst to have traveled to China since the pandemic
began, and he has held many policy meetings there over the past two weeks.
Asked about Beijing's relationship with Moscow, the people he spoke to in China
mostly stayed silent, he says. "I think this silence is an interesting
sign that they have a conflict of interest and have maneuvered themselves into
a difficult position."
Putin
himself indicated in mid-September that China was less than enthusiastic about
the war. "We highly value the balanced position of our Chinese friends
when it comes to the Ukraine crisis," he said during a meeting with Xi in
Samarkand, Uzbekistan. He said he understood that Beijing had "questions
and concerns." It was as if Putin had been forced to publicly castigate
himself. Xi preferred to forgo the celebratory dinner with his "best friend"
Putin. The Chinese leader was reportedly worried about COVID. That, at least,
was the excuse given.
***Der
Spiegel Staff: Christian Esch, Georg Fahrion, Matthias Gebauer, Christina Hebel
und René Pfister
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/berlin-and-washington-play-out-scenarios-of-a-nuclear-strike-by-putin-a-ecbc1772-8526-4ce1-ae0d-7270309df54e?sara_ecid=nl_upd_1jtzCCtmxpVo9GAZr2b4X8GquyeAc9&nlid=bfjpqhxz