Going Nuclear

While the West worries that Russia might resort to escalation in response to Ukrainian advances, Putin claims to see it the other way round. He spoke of ‘attempts to perpetrate terrorist attacks and damage our civilian infrastructure’, referring presumably to occasional Ukrainian attacks on the territory of the neighboring Belgorod oblast and of Crimea. He added:

‘Terrorist attacks are a serious matter. In fact, it is about using terrorist methods. We see this in the killing of officials in the liberated territories, we even see attempts at perpetrating terrorist attacks in the Russian Federation, including – I am not sure if this was made public – attempts to carry out terrorist attacks near our nuclear facilities, nuclear power plants in the Russian Federation. I am not even talking about the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant.

We are monitoring the situation and will do our best to prevent a negative scenario from unfolding. We will respond if they fail to realize that these approaches are unacceptable. They are, in fact, no different than terrorist attacks.’

Somewhat bizarrely for the head of a country that has been systematically terrorizing people in occupied territories and launching missiles on a regular basis against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, he insisted that Russia had been ‘responding rather restrainedly, but that’s for the time being.’ Noting that ‘a couple of sensitive blows’ had been delivered against Ukraine, he added: ‘Well, what about that? We will assume that these are warning strikes. If the situation continues to develop in this way, the answer will be more serious.’ This was apparently a reference to the strikes that followed Ukraine’s successful offensive in Kharkiv, causing widespread blackouts and damaging a dam in the southern city of Kryvyi Rih. The reference to more to come may well have been intended to keep alive fears that at some point along this line nuclear weapons might be used, but that was not explicit and Russia still has means to inflict such damage without resorting to these weapons.

Nuclear Use
Yet the nuclear issue now comes up frequently. It is currently probably the matter for the greatest speculation, including in Kyiv and Washington, when officials and commentators ask what Putin might do next.  Rose Gottemoeller, a former top US nuclear policy-maker and NATO’s deputy secretary general until 2019, told the BBC of her fear that ‘Putin and his coterie’ will ‘strike back now in really unpredictable ways that may even involve weapons of mass destruction.’ She did not expect ICBM launches, but possibly another form of nuclear saber-rattling - ‘a single strike over the Black Sea, or perhaps a strike at a Ukrainian military facility’ to ‘strike terror not only into the hearts of the Ukrainians’ and its allies.

This is not a possibility that should be dismissed in a cavalier fashion. Russia has abundant stores of nuclear weapons, in a variety of shapes and sizes, and Putin might be desperate enough to use them. Because he has already done some really stupid things who can say for sure that he won’t do anything even stupider. This possibility is not negligible, and that is worrying enough in itself. But it is not enough to answer the question of whether he might give a nuclear order by references to his mental state or assumptions that because he is being humiliated he might respond with a tantrum to end all tantrums. We need to consider exactly what problems, military and/or political this might solve. Matthew Kroenig writing for the Atlantic Council warns that a Russian nuclear strike ‘could cause a humanitarian catastrophe, deal a crippling blow to the Ukrainian military, divide the Western alliance, and compel Kyiv to sue for peace.’ But will it?

To act this way would break a ‘taboo’ that has developed around nuclear use since the only time they were used in anger in August 1945. It was a taboo that Putin himself acknowledged with President Biden in June 2021, when they reaffirmed the observation affirmed by Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan in 1985: ‘nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.’

It would also represent an extreme version of the behavior his forces have already been following. Russia is not short of means of causing hurt and suffering and has shown no reluctance to use them.  Ukrainian towns and cities have been pummeled by Russian shells, rockets and missiles, directed against residential buildings, factories, transportation hubs, power plants and much more. Over last weekend the Pivdennoukrainsk nuclear power plant in Mykolaiv oblast was struck. Thankfully the reactor was not hit, although there were explosions only 300 meters away.

Russia’s campaign has seen thresholds of violence being passed with disturbing regularity. In addition to the long-distance strikes there have been the more intimate crimes uncovered after the occupying forces have left, of tortures, murders, rapes, abductions, and looting. If these were supposed to have a strategic purpose, and are not just random acts of cruelty and malevolence (some clearly come into this category), then one would suppose the intention would be to make the Ukrainians ready to concede. In practice the effect has been the opposite. It has hardened their resolve and made them even more determined to rid their country of a Russian presence. Despite all that they have been through Ukrainians are showing extraordinary levels of resilience, unity, and determination. When asked, the Ukrainian government says that even nuclear use would have the same effect.

It is especially important to note that just because nuclear weapons have not been employed that does not mean that they have had no influence on the course of this conflict. They have played an important deterrent role. Just before the invasion began Putin took part in an annual drill involving Russian missiles. Then, when he announced the ‘special operation’ on 24 February, he remarked  that ‘whoever tries to hinder us’ will face ‘consequences that you have never faced in your history.’ Three days later he publicly ordered his defense minister Shoigu and chief of the general staff Gerasimov ‘to transfer the army’s deterrence forces to a special mode of combat duty’. This did not amount to much in practice: the point was to underline a deterrence threat.

The threat was directed against any thoughts in NATO countries about directly intervening to support Ukraine. Threats of this type were made in 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea. Then Putin stated that other countries ‘should understand it’s best not to mess with us,’ adding unnecessarily that ‘Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers’. At the time, as now, Russian media broadcast regular, lurid descriptions of the terrible things Russia would do to any countries that interfered, neglecting to mention what these countries could do back in return. The aim was to present Russia as a country with unlimited power, a will to use it, and little sense of proportion, so that any minor provocation could result in terror raining down on the perpetrator.

These threats were geared to reinforcing Putin’s original message. Take the contributions of Andrei Gurulev, a Lieutenant General, member of the Duma, and regular media commentator, who was directly involved in Russia actions in the Donbas in 2014-15. He is something of a charmer. The Ukrainian authorities have released an intercepted call from him on February 28, 2022,  just after the invasion,  issuing orders to set Ukrainian households on fire. He instructed an invading unit: ’Burn them, damn it, burn them! Once you’ve thrown them out of there – finish the house, burn it down! Spit at that f*cking humanism!’ He has a thing about destroying Britain. On state television in August, when asked if Britain was readying for war with Russia, Gurulev replied that this was already the case. Russia was fighting both Britain and the US in Ukraine.

Let’s make it super simple. Two ships, 50 launches of Zircon [missiles]—and there is not a single power station left in the UK.  Fifty more Zircons—and the entire port infrastructure is gone. One more—and we forget about the British Isles. A Third World country, destroyed and fallen apart because Scotland and Wales would leave. This would be the end of the British Crown. And they are scared of it.’

More recently  Gurulyov noted that Biden had warned Russia against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He observed that ‘we may use them but not in Ukraine.’ This time he made particular mention of strikes against decision-making centers in Berlin, threatening Germany with total chaos, along with his familiar theme of turning the British Isles into a ‘Martian desert’ in 3 minutes flat.’ He added, oddly, that this could be done with ‘tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic ones,’ and, confidently, that the US would not respond. All this was linked to preventing NATO getting directly involved. ‘We shouldn’t be shy about it or fear it. … They should tuck their tails in and keep up yapping.’

Strip away the absurd rhetoric and braggadocio, and it is clear the focus remains on deterring NATO countries, now including the provision of Ukraine with the means to mount deep strikes against Russian territory. As another recent example, Russian TV presenter Olga Skabeyeva, who regularly describes the current conflict as World War III, made specific threats with regard to the potential delivery of the long-range (300km) Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile from the US to Ukraine. ‘Russia has every right to defend itself. That’s to say, to strike Poland or the US’s Ramstein base in Germany, for example.’ The current narrative in Moscow is that the troubles they now face are not because of the exertions of the Ukrainians but because they are backed by the best Western weapons. It is a familiar refrain that they are at war with NATO.

These threats have not been ignored by NATO. It was determined right at the start that there would be no direct intervention by member states. That was behind their refusal to agree to Kyiv’s pleas to set up a non-fly zone to push Russian aircraft from the skies over Ukraine. President Biden has been clear that he does not want to give Putin an excuse to escalate, which is one reason why he has been reluctant to authorize the ATACMS deployment. Another reason is that the Pentagon is unconvinced that this would make a large difference to Ukraine’s military performance.

The Americans have also sought to warn the Russians about the risks associated with nuclear escalation. In an interview  with CBS, the President explained that turning to nuclear or other unconventional weapons would ‘change the face of war unlike anything since World War II. … They’ll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been.’ He added that ‘depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur.’

Backed Into a Corner
Yet while the nuclear threats are directed against NATO countries rather than Ukraine, Ukraine is the reason why Russia is in trouble and which now seems to offer the most troubling scenario. Colin H. Kahl, under secretary of defense for policy, said in a statement to The New York Times that ‘Ukraine’s success on the battlefield could cause Russia to feel backed into a corner, and that is something we must remain mindful of.’ This point was reinforced by the deputy director of the CIA, David S. Cohen, urging not to ‘underestimate Putin’s adherence to his original objective, which was to control Ukraine’ or ‘his risk appetite.’

One can note that Russia is not truly backed into a corner. At the moment there is no existential threat to the Russian state, even if one might be developing to Putin’s personal position, and that the way to get out of any corner is to cross the border back home. And if he wants to escalate he has other options. To quote the New  York Times again:

‘more indiscriminate bombardment of Ukrainian cities, a campaign to kill senior Ukrainian leaders, or an attack on supply hubs outside Ukraine — located in NATO countries like Poland and Romania — that are channeling extraordinary quantities of arms, ammunition and military equipment into the country.’

More might be done against critical infrastructure or Ukrainian government buildings.

Yet these are all things he has either done to a degree, tried and failed to do, or simply not attempted because they are too difficult. If the option was there it would have made no sense to wait to interdict the weapon supply lines from the western borders into Ukraine, but Russia has not been able to do this. Attacking Poland or Romania would invoke NATO’s Article V. Russian leaders are well aware of this for they refer to it often. This is how nuclear deterrence works in the other direction and keeps the conflict contained.

So if initiating a direct war with NATO is too dangerous, and the value of deterrence lies in limiting the forms of assistance provided to Ukraine, what about using such weapons against Ukrainian targets?

There is a view that Russian forces might hold on until the winter and recreate the sense of stalemate and mutual attrition that was felt last summer while the battle for Luhansk was underway. Another view is that their army is in a shambolic state and will be unable to regain any grip on the situation. Should the Ukrainians start moving against Russian position in the Donbas, or capture the large number of Russian troops defending territory in Kherson and cut off from new supplies, then Putin would face calamity. In the face of such calamity would nuclear use be of any value?

Two possible roles are identified: first, to affect the course of the fighting on the ground, and second, more coercive, to threaten to raise the stakes to terrifying heights, including attacks on cites, persuading the Ukrainians to give up. To a degree this second role is inherent in the first. Once the nuclear threshold has been passed then the barriers to further escalation has been reduced. How might this be done? Options range from a demonstration shot at one end of the spectrum, perhaps against a significant but currently uninhabited site (Snake Island has been mentioned) to make the point that a process has been set in motion with an unpredictable end, to direct strikes against Kyiv at the other end, with battlefield nuclear use in the middle.

The problem with a demonstration is that the message may be unclear. It will show that Russia is ready to ignore the strong normative prohibition on any nuclear use yet is still cautious on making the most of the explosive power. When a similar option was discussed in 1945 prior to the decision to target the city of Hiroshima one concern was that while this could show that the US had a new weapon of unprecedented power, and do so without killing large numbers of people, unless the Japanese could see its destructive effects directly it would make no impression on their leadership.

Another issue was whether the bomb would work. It would be embarrassing to encourage the Japanese to watch and then for the spectacle to turn out to be a dud. It is possible that this could be a non-trivial consideration in any Russian deliberations: while missiles are regularly tested this is not the case with their warheads. The last such test under the Soviet Union was during the early period of the Cold War. As we have seen with other weapons that have been bought out of storage they have not always been well maintained and do not work as advertised.

Another decision made in 1945 was not to warn the Japanese in advance what was coming. Because this would be a lone aircraft they did not want the Japanese to make an effort to shoot it down. As it was, although the air raid sirens sounded over Hiroshima, the absence of a large raiding force meant that it was turned off, and so many people were outside when the bomb exploded. Presumably the Russians would want to add to the shock value of a strike, and to reduce the risks of it being caught by air defenses, by keeping it a surprise. This would mean that any coercive value would have to be extracted after the event, using it as a warning of more to come.

What sort of event? It is assumed, but who can know, that the aim would be to combine any coercive value with a direct military value. This is why the focus is on the short-range low-yield ‘battlefield’ weapons, sometimes mistakenly described as ‘tactical’ (any nuclear use has strategic repercussions). This is where the analysis gets tricky.

The Russian armed force have thought long and hard about nuclear strategy. A detailed and subtle analysis by Michael Kofman and Anya Loukianova Fink shows that at least in theory the Russian military do not believe that limited nuclear use necessarily leads to uncontrolled escalation. The potential targets for limited nuclear strikes are those already identified for conventional strikes –critical infrastructure more than cities. How far this would be taken once the first threshold had been passed would depend on the opponent’s reaction. Russian thinking on the matter, however, is geared to great power conflicts, and not an attempt to crush a supposedly weaker and smaller neighbor. Moreover, this is the sort of escalation that Putin was talking about in his Uzbekistan press conference for which he does not need nuclear weapons to have the desired effect.

That leaves the question of using the weapons to affect the ongoing battles underway on the ground. Here it is worth noting the issues that surround any attempt to use these as if they were normal weapons of war. In this role they can be seen as uniquely powerful versions of conventional munitions – from bombs, depth charges, shells, and mines, with the added ingredient of radiation. In this regard they are best employed against large targets, for example a gathering of troops preparing for an offensive. The alternative would be a strong defensive position. Ideally this target would be some distance away from Russian troops. (The Americans famously developed a nuclear gun – the Davy Crockett – which had a lethal radius greater than its range). 

Given the nature of the fighting in Ukraine this is not at all straightforward. There are rarely massed formations operating in either defense or attack. Units tend to be dispersed. Consider an account (from a Russian source) about the offensive in Kherson. It notes that the Ukrainians have made their impact by messing with the Russian supply lines while advancing not by armored thrusts (unlike Kharkiv) but instead by using small groups of infantry ‘creeping’ forward over watery ground, for this is an area cut through by irrigation canals. Finding a useful target for nuclear use in such circumstances would be difficult, and, given how little it might achieve, a strange way to start a nuclear war. Moscow has shown no great care for the populations of Luhansk and Donetsk, but as their liberation is supposedly at the heart of Russian war aims it would also be strange to mark this by nuclear detonations.

There is no evidence for now that weapons are being moved into position or being prepared for such strikes. US intelligence, which has been extraordinarily precise so far can be expected to pick up any details (or at least the Russian would need to assume that). No effort has been made to explain to the Russian public why such strikes might be necessary. After all Putin still insists that this is a limited operation and has refused to put the country on a war footing. As we have seen Russian figures talk garrulously about scenarios for nuclear use against NATO countries but not Ukraine. We can also assume that neither of Putin’s recent interlocutors - Xi and Modi - would be enthused. This is a scenario largely generated in the West trying to anticipate contingencies that have yet to be reached.

It is true that the prospect of nuclear use might engender panic in Ukraine and NATO. It is also hard to imagine that the news would be greeted calmly in Russia. It could intensify opposition in Moscow to Putin. He would of course need a compliant chain of command to implement an order to go nuclear, especially as part of a complex military operation on the ground. If the wind catches radioactive dust close to the borders it could fall on Russian territory.

Even if use did make a difference the fundamental political problem would still be there: how to pacify a hostile population with a depleted army. Meanwhile nuclear threats do serve an important purpose for Putin, in deterring more direct NATO engagement. Should he use nuclear weapons in a limited and possibly futile way, the threshold would still have been crossed and all bets would be off in terms of a NATO response, which might well include doing exactly those things Putin was trying to deter. This would also be true of possible Ukrainian moves against Belgorod and Crimea.

There is one qualification to this analysis, which is Crimea. This territory was seized from Ukraine in 2014 and Ukraine wants it back. Militarily this would be even more challenging than the other acts of ‘de-occupation’ that Ukraine wants to achieve. There are ways of making the Russian hold on Crimea more difficult without a military assault, and Zelensky has spoken of this as a problem that might require a diplomatic solution, although if Russia shows no interest in a negotiated withdrawal his forces will keep on going. Rather than fretting about some future craziness, efforts might more usefully be put into preparing for the moment when Putin realizes that he has lost and may seek to hold on to Crimea. At this time all the issues connected with ending this war – sanctions, reparations, war crimes, prisoner exchanges, and security guarantees – would need to be addressed. We may find it difficult to imagine that Putin can lose, and wonder about how well he will cope with his failed aggression, but it is entirely possible that at some point he will run out of options, and have to look failure in the eye.

Lawrence Freedman is Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London. Among his books is The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. The article originally appeared on Lawrence Freedman’s Substack “Comment is Freed.”