contents
Russia has already conducted simulation exercises with its nuclear-capable Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. There is great concern that Moscow’s war will escalate into a nuclear conflict. How great is the danger – what can be expected? A UN expert assesses.
Pavel Podvig studied and did his doctorate in Moscow. Today he works at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, where he deals with weapons of mass destruction, not least Russian ones. He is considered one of the world’s leading experts on this topic.
Nuclear threat works
The fact that Moscow has just simulated electronic launches in its enclave of Kaliningrad, with Iskander missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads, doesn’t particularly irritate him: “Russia carries out such tests regularly.”
Only because the Kremlin possesses nuclear weapons was it able to launch a major attack on Ukraine at all.
From his point of view it is clear: “Nuclear weapons are already playing a role in the Ukraine war: it was only because the Kremlin possesses nuclear weapons that it could afford the large-scale attack on Ukraine at all.” Knowing full well that the West will not attack Russia in return.
With his nuclear talk, President Vladimir Putin drew a red line: If the USA, if NATO intervene directly in the war, then nuclear attacks would be conceivable. From a Russian perspective, the threat works; the West is still holding back.
No automatism
Ultimately, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, decides whether atomic bombs are used – just like in the USA. “But there is no automatic mechanism in Moscow either. The ruler doesn’t just press a red button in his bunker and the bombs fly. A number of people would be involved in a decision.” Including the defense minister, generals, intelligence chiefs. Without the right of veto, but they could raise objections.
Legend:
The firing of a long-range nuclear weapon would require an enormous amount of preparation – these would be visible to the USA and NATO, explains the UN expert.
key stone
Even more important: Unlike a nuclear counter-attack, where long-range nuclear weapons with the highest potential for destruction would be fired within minutes, an offensive use of smaller, so-called tactical nuclear weapons would require more preparation, plans, and issuing orders. The nuclear warheads would have to be taken out of their silos and taken to the missiles, fighter-bombers and submarines. Podvig: «Such preparations would be visible to the USA and NATO. So far none of that has happened.”
In the current Ukraine war there are simply no plausible military targets for tactical nuclear weapons.
According to human judgement, the Kremlin should also be clear: “In the current Ukraine war there are simply no plausible military targets for tactical nuclear weapons. Using them would be completely pointless, would bring no military, no tactical benefit.”
Only political-strategic goals are conceivable: either by Russia detonating a nuclear bomb high above the Black Sea – as a threatening gesture and to demonstrate determination. Or, according to Podvig, in a criminal, barbaric act, it destroys a large Ukrainian city with millions of civilian victims – with the intention of breaking the Ukrainian spirit of resistance.
A horror idea, he emphasizes. In such a case, the West would be quite helpless. He, too, could not achieve a military objective with a nuclear counterattack, but could only demonstrate barbarism on his part by being willing to kill millions of civilians, this time Russians.
In any case, it is wise that the USA should at least react calmly to the Russian threats. Because even verbally waving nuclear bombs around is dangerous and increases the risk of an unwanted escalation or dramatic misunderstandings.
Podvig still believes that the taboo against using nuclear weapons, which has been in force for almost 80 years, still stands. At least that’s what he wants to believe. There is no guarantee.