At the battle of Stirling Bridge, 11 September 1297, the movie Braveheart has William Wallace provoking the English to battle, saying "Here are Scotland's terms. Lower your flags, and march straight back to England, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for 100 years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today. ... Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own ass."
Putin's Nuclear Crisis - March 2024
Threats about the use of nuclear weapons from the Kremlin have been heard since the beginning of a full-scale war. This is cynically called “protection of Russian interests.”
David E. Sanger wrote 01 March 2024 "Putin knows that his opponents — led by President Biden — fear escalation of the conflict most of all. Even bluster about going nuclear serves as a reminder to Mr. Putin’s many adversaries of the risks of pushing him too far... Implicit in Mr. Putin’s insistence that nuclear controls and the continued existence of the Ukrainian state must be decided together is the threat that the Russian leader would be happy to see all the current limits on deployed strategic weapons expire.... Putin underscored one of the distinctive and most unsettling aspects of the war in Ukraine. Time and again, his senior military officials and strategists have discussed the employment of nuclear weapons as the logical next step if their conventional forces prove insufficient on the battlefield, or if they need to scare off a Western intervention.... "Putin’s message was clear: He regards victory in Ukraine as an existential struggle, central to his grander plan to restore the glory of the days when Peter the Great ruled at the height of the Russian Empire. And once a fight is seen as a war of survival rather than a war of choice, the leap to discussing the use of nuclear weapons is a small one. His bet is that the United States is heading in the other direction, becoming more isolationist, more unwilling to stand up to Russia’s threats... "
Emmanuel Macron was brutally honest in Prague 05 March 2024: "Who launched the war in Ukraine? Vladimir Putin. Who threatens us, whatever we do whatever we say, with nuclear weapons? President Putin. If every day we explain what our limits are in the face of someone who has none and launched this war, I can already tell you that the spirit of defeat is there lurking. Not amongst us." Macron stated before the French community at the Lycée Français in Prague, Czech Republic “We are undoubtedly approaching a moment in our Europe when we must not be cowards,”.
Putin resumed sending mixed nuclear messages to the U.S. and its allies. On one hand, Putin sought to assure audiences in a March 13 interview that he doesn’t think a nuclear war is imminent. On the other hand, in the course of that interview, Putin went beyond the description of conditions under which Russia would initiate the use of nuclear weapons that can be found in the 2020 Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence and 2014 Military Doctrine. In particular, he implied that Russia could have used nuclear weapons if the Russian front in southeastern Ukraine had collapsed in the Kherson area. He also claimed that the 2020 principles allow for the use of nuclear weapons when Russia’s sovereignty and independence are “harmed.”
President Vladimir Putin warned 13 March 2024 in an interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Media Group Director General Dmitry Kiselev at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, that Russia is “ready” to use nuclear weapons if there is a threat to its statehood. In a recorded interview broadcast by Russian media on Wednesday, the Kremlin chief said his country is ready for a nuclear war from a “military-technical” point of view. His comments signal a resumption of nuclear “sabre-rattling“, as it was branded a year ago, just ahead of the presidential election. "I have said many times, for us it is a matter of life and death, but for them it is a matter of improving their tactical position in general in the world, but also in Europe in particular, maintaining their status among their allies. This is also important, but not as much as it is for us."
D. Kiselev: "Interesting, you said that we are ready for this. Philosopher Alexander Dugin, a specialist in geopolitics, calls for direct and practical preparation for nuclear war. “And the better we are prepared for it, the less likely such a war is,” says Alexander Dugin. How can you even be prepared for this? Are we really ready for nuclear war?"
Vladimir Putin: "From a military-technical point of view, we are, of course, ready. They [the troops] are constantly in a state of combat readiness. This is the first one. Second. This is also a generally accepted thing - our nuclear triad is more modern than any other triad, and only we and the Americans have such a triad. We have made much more progress here. Ours is more modern, with all the nuclear components. In general, in terms of carriers and charges, we have approximately parity, but ours is more modern.
"Everyone knows this, all specialists know this. But this does not mean that we should measure ourselves by the number of carriers and warheads, but we need to know about this. And those who need it, I repeat - experts, specialists, military - they know this well. They are now setting the task of increasing this modernity, novelty, and they have corresponding plans. We know this too. They are developing all their components, and so are we. But this does not mean that, in my opinion, they are ready to start this nuclear war tomorrow. They want to - what to do? We are ready."
D. Kiselyov: Maybe, to make it even more convincing, we should conduct nuclear tests at some point? After all, we have no international restrictions for this.
Vladimir Putin: "There is an agreement banning tests of this kind, but, unfortunately, the United States has not ratified this agreement. Therefore, in order to maintain parity, we withdrew this ratification. Since the treaty was not ratified by the United States, it did not finally enter into legal force because it did not receive the required number of ratifications, nevertheless, we adhere to these agreements.
"We know that such tests are being considered in the United States. This is due to the fact that when new warheads appear, some experts believe that it is not enough to test them only on a computer, which means they need to be tested in their natural form. Such ideas are floating around in certain circles in the United States, they do exist, we know about it. And we are watching too. If they conduct such tests, I don’t exclude it, it’s not necessary, we need it or not, we still need to think about it, but it’s possible that we can do the same.
D. Kiselyov: But are we technically ready for this?
Vladimir Putin: "Yes, we are always ready. I want it to be clear that these are not ordinary types of weapons, this is the type, type of troops that is in constant combat readiness."
D. Kiselyov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, but still, in difficult moments, I don’t know, last year at the front in connection with Kharkov or Kherson, did the thought of tactical nuclear weapons ever cross your mind?
Vladimir Putin: "Why? It was at the proposal of the then command of the group that our side made the decision to withdraw troops from Kherson. But this did not mean at all that our front there was falling apart. There was nothing even close to this. This was simply done in order not to incur unnecessary losses among personnel. That's all. This was the most important motive, because in conditions of combat operations, when it was impossible to fully supply the group located on the right bank, we would simply suffer unjustified losses of personnel. Because of this, it was decided to relocate to the left bank.
"The correctness of this choice was confirmed by what the Ukrainian command tried to do in certain areas of the left bank, in the same settlement of Krynki: they simply threw their people there, like into a meat grinder, and that’s all. They've been running around there barefoot lately, in the literal sense of the word. They tried to throw ammunition there by high-speed boats and drones. What it is? They were simply sent to slaughter....
"Weapons exist to be used. We have our own principles, what do they talk about? That we are ready to use weapons, including any weapons, including those you mentioned, if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, about damaging our sovereignty and independence. We have everything spelled out in our Strategy. We didn't change it."
National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said "Russia's nuclear rhetoric has been reckless and irresponsible throughout this conflict. It is Russia that brutally invaded Ukraine without provocation or justification, and we will continue to support Ukraine as they defend their people and their sovereign territory from Russian aggression." A senior White House official said, "As we understand it, Mr. Putin was restating Russia's nuclear doctrine that they will use nuclear weapons if their sovereignty is threatened so this isn't a new stance for them. We have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture, nor any indications that Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine."
Biden has repeatedly said the U.S. has no intention of sending U.S. troops to fight alongside Kyiv's forces, although French President Emmanuel Macron recently declined to rule out the possibility of Western troops joining the stalemated conflict that has no end in sight. Western countries have, however, continued to arm Ukraine, with the U.S. this week cobbling together $300 million worth of ammunition, anti-aircraft missiles, artillery rounds and "some anti-armor systems" from its military stockpiles in a new tranche of aid to help Kyiv's forces. But a much broader $60 billion aid package that Biden supports is stalled in Congress.
Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior Ukrainian presidential official, told Reuters in a statement he viewed Putin's nuclear warning as propaganda designed to intimidate the West. "Realizing that things are going the wrong way, Putin continues to use classic nuclear rhetoric. With the old Soviet hope - 'be scared and retreat!'," said Podolyak, who said he believed such talk showed Putin was afraid of losing the war.
Putin returned to the possibility of an existential war with NATO during his very first press conference after Russian electoral authorities announced his reelection for another six-year term. “I think anything is possible in the modern world. But what I’m saying, and this is clear to everyone, that this will be one step away from full-scale World War III,” he told reporters when commenting on what a full-fledged conflict between Russia and NATO would entail. “We are forced to literally defend [our] interests ... with arms in our hands ... the [electoral] results ... show that ordinary people ... understand that,” Putin declared at his electoral HQ after winning 87% of the vote. When asked to comment on his main post-electoral tasks, Putin said, “First of all, we need to solve problems within the framework of the special military operation, ... strengthen the Armed Forces.”
Dmitry Trenin, research professor at the Higher School of Economics, a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations and. a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), argued 23 March 2024 that " in the Ukrainian conflict, the US military and political leadership has not only articulated, but has publicly expressed, the mission of using its proxy to inflict a strategic military defeat on Russia, despite its nuclear status.... In other words, the US is trying to defeat Russia not only without using nuclear weapons, but even without formally engaging in hostilities.
"In other words, it is necessary to put fear back into the minds and hearts of the enemy’s leaders. The beneficial sort of fear, it’s worth stressing.
"It must also be recognized that the limits of purely verbal intervention have been exhausted at this stage of the Ukrainian conflict. Channels of communication all the way to the top must remain open around the clock, but the most important messages at this stage must be sent through concrete steps: doctrinal changes; military exercises to test them; underwater and aerial patrols along the coasts of the likely enemy; warnings about preparations for nuclear tests and the tests themselves; the imposition of no-fly zones over part of the Black Sea, and so on. The point of these actions is not only to demonstrate determination and readiness to use available capabilities to protect Russia’s vital interests, but –most importantly– to bring the enemy to a halt and encourage it to engage in serious dialogue.
"The escalation ladder does not end here. Military-technical steps can be followed by real acts, warnings of which have already been given: for example, attacks on air bases and supply centers on the territory of NATO countries, and so on. There is no need to go further. We simply need to understand, and help the enemy to understand, that strategic stability in the real, not narrow, technical sense of the word is not compatible with armed conflict between nuclear powers, even if (for the time being) it is being waged indirectly.
"It is unlikely that the enemy will accept this state of affairs easily and immediately. At the very least, they will need to realize that this is our position and draw the appropriate conclusions.
"It is time for us to start revising the conceptual apparatus we use in matters of security strategy. We talk about international security, strategic stability, deterrence, arms control, nuclear non-proliferation and so on. These concepts emerged in the course of the development of Western – mainly American – political thought and found immediate practical application in US foreign policy. They are based on existing realities but adapted to American foreign policy objectives. We have tried to adapt them to our needs, but with mixed success.
"It is time to move on and develop our own concepts that reflect Russia’s position in the world as well as its needs".
France could be "leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict" with Russia, according to an alert memorandum from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) to the US President, published by the Ron Paul Institute. The memorandum, titled "On the Brink of Nuclear War" the VIPS warned the White House that French President Emmanuel Macron's dispatch of approximately 2,000 troops to Ukraine "in the not-so-distant future," could snowball to become a NATO war, and ultimately, a US war.
The memorandum, then, explained that France seems to be "naively" assuming that its NATO membership would deter Russia from targeting its troops. However, VIPS argued, it is highly probable that Russia would indeed target any French as well as Baltic troops deployed in Ukraine. Under such circumstances, the French President Macron might strategize that, following Russian attacks on NATO member troops, despite the lack of mandate, he could invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, prompting a NATO alliance intervention, VIPS said. Such intervention would "perhaps include interdiction missions against tactical targets inside Russia."
"If NATO then attacks strategic targets inside Russia, at that point Russia’s nuclear doctrine takes over, and NATO decision-making centers would be hit with nuclear weapons," the VIPS memorandum to the US President underscored. This is where the threat to the US becomes imminent, as the former intelligence agents at VIPS stated "We anticipate Russia refraining from initiating a nuclear attack on the US, but rather leaving the decision up to the US to risk destruction by considering a nuclear strike on Russia," adding that "However, Russian strategic capabilities, particularly in areas like hypersonic missiles, have advanced to the point where they exceed those of the US and NATO in some respects."
In other words, the VIPS underscored that the Russian temptation to strike first may be a bit stronger this time around, and the memorandum reveals that the former intelligence officers appear somewhat less confident that Russia would want to “go second”. Europe must realize that France's actions are "leading it down a path of inevitable self-destruction." Similarly, the US must understand that "need to understand that Europe is leading them to the cusp of nuclear annihilation."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
