Lrussia suffered a new humiliation with the explosion which targeted the bridge over the Kerch Strait on 8 October. He was the triumphant symbol of the unilateral and illegal annexation of Crimea, now he has become the illustration of an imperial ambition in bad shape. While several Ukrainian cities, including kyiv, were the target of new bombardments aimed at civilians, on October 10, this humiliation can only revive the most extreme speeches on Russian television sets, where the craziest propaganda pours out daily. The threat of recourse to nuclear weapons figures prominently in it.
It has been fueled since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine by the transparent allusions of Vladimir Putin himself. On February 24, at the very beginning of the attack, the latter had thus threatened those who would try to get in his way of ” consequences (…) never before known”.
The master of the Kremlin returned to the charge again on September 21, when he launched the process leading to the equally unilateral and illegal annexation of the conquered regions in the east and south of the country, now targeted by the counter-offensives Ukrainians. He has indeed assured to be ready to use “all means to [sa] disposal to protect Russia and [son] people “placing oneself in the posture of the attacked.
This unhealthy climate thrives in the most complete fog concerning weapons whose employment is agitated in all irresponsibility. Possible tactical bombs, used on the battlefield in an attempt to circumvent proven deterrence mechanisms, are regularly mentioned by experts. This unprecedented situation places Ukraine and its allies in a formidable dilemma. Should we refrain from commenting on these threats to reduce them to sinister reels of power under pressure? Or on the contrary respond to it to prevent a headlong rush that would get out of control?
The President of the United States opted for the second solution, on October 6, believing that the world had not been confronted “at the prospect of an Armageddon since [le président John] Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis » occurred in 1962. Before him, his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, had assured to have “communicated to the Russians directly, privately, at a very high level, that the consequences [seraient] catastrophic for Russia if it uses[ait] nuclear weapons in Ukraine ». Without obviously saying more about these consequences, in the logic of the grammar of war.
The effect produced by the dramatization of Joe Biden forced the White House to reassure, specifying that it had no“directions” concerning a use “imminent” such weapons. If the terms used by the President of the United States can have a virtue, it is to underline how much the very evocation of a recourse to nuclear weapons cannot be trivialized.
It must not at any price be reduced to a tool like any other, which could be made available to any kind of adventurer. Such trivialization would also have devastating effects in terms of proliferation, as North Korean rhetoric already testifies, which can only go against the interests of Russia itself.
These threats instilled by Vladimir Putin must more than ever encourage the powers that continue to spare him, starting with China, to finally take their responsibilities. A fundamental red line must be reaffirmed by everyone, because it is in everyone’s interest.