Comment: How do we judge the nuclear threat posed by Putin?

There are reasons Putin would or wouldn’t use his arsenal. We are relying on the judgment of someone who has shown little.

By Hal Brands / Bloomberg Opinion

Russian President Vladimir Putin has raised anew the possibility he might use nuclear weapons against Ukraine to prevail in a conflict going sideways. The smart money says he won’t, because doing so — or otherwise expanding the conflict drastically — wouldn’t make a bad situation any better.

Yet the smart money might not have predicted the choices that set Putin down this path in the first place.

Much of Putin’s televised speech Tuesday was a repetition of the familiar. He again blamed the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Ukraine for the current conflict. He restated the goal of “liberating” the Donbas region. Yet Putin did say something new: That Russia is mobilizing , albeit partially, for a long war by increasing arms production and calling up 300,000 additional troops, mostly reservists. He pledged to support referendums this week that could lead to annexation of parts of eastern Ukraine.

He also accused the West of making nuclear threats against Russia and warned that “those who are using nuclear blackmail against us should know that the wind … can turn around.”

Putin finally seems to realize how badly the war is going; which his own biases and the sycophancy of his subordinates may previously have obscured. By opting for partial mobilization, he is trying to appease hard-liners who have called for all-out war without enraging a public that is mostly apathetic. His goal, presumably, is to stem the erosion of Russia’s military position, and then use the threat of escalation to impose a diplomatic solution.

Whether this would work is another matter. Throwing poorly trained, equipped and motivated troops into the meat grinder won’t likely change the military equation. (Russia doesn’t even fully control the parts of Ukraine it is threatening to annex.) What it will do is raise the human costs of war for Russian society; and thus raise the political costs Putin would pay if he loses.

Using nuclear weapons to avert such a defeat has always been a possibility. Russian doctrine encompasses a willingness to use nuclear escalation to end a conventional conflict on acceptable terms. In his speech, Putin declared that Russia would use “all weapon systems available to us” if the war endangered the “territorial integrity of our country.”

In other words, Ukraine and the U.S. must accept the loss of Crimea, which Russia already claims as its sovereign territory, as well as any lands Moscow annexes in Donbas, or risk nuclear conflict.

Would Putin carry through on the threat? In Washington, D.C., and other Western capitals, there are two schools of thought:

Optimists believe Putin won’t use nuclear weapons because doing so wouldn’t really help him. So-called battlefield nuclear weapons work best against large masses of troops or tanks, but the fighting in Ukraine is fairly dispersed. Holding territory or cities that have just been hit with nuclear weapons isn’t an attractive proposition; the prospect that fallout might blow back into Russia makes tactical nuclear use less alluring still.

Putin might still use nuclear weapons to reset the conflict psychologically; to shock Kyiv and Washington into de-escalation. Yet that could simply cause the U.S. and its allies to double down in Ukraine, perhaps directly entering the conflict themselves, because doing otherwise would create a horrendous precedent that revisionist powers can simply nuke their way out of failed wars.

Pessimists aren’t so sure Putin is bluffing, because using nuclear weapons might not actually backfire. Some unknown portion of the international community would become desperate to end the fighting immediately, even at the cost of making concessions to Moscow. The U.S. and its allies would have few attractive options in response.

Retaliating with limited nuclear strikes against Russian forces would risk an escalatory spiral. Entering the war with NATO conventional forces might invite additional nuclear strikes by Moscow. Non-kinetic reprisals, such as cyberattacks or more economic sanctions, would appear pathetically weak compared to the Russian offense.

Yes, using nuclear weapons would be an existential gamble for Putin. But if he was headed for a defeat that threatened his hold on power, and perhaps his life, then why not gamble big rather than end up like Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi? And if Putin landed himself in his current position through a series of disastrous miscalculations, why should we expect his judgment to improve as he becomes more isolated and frightened?

It is sobering to realize that we are now in the gravest great-power nuclear crisis in a half-century. It is more sobering still to think that avoiding nuclear escalation may require Putin to show more prudence and caution in ending this war than he did in starting it.

Hal Brands is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. The Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, he is co-author, most recently, of “Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China” and a member of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, April 3

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

King County Executive Dow Constantine and Senator Maria Cantwell walk through the Lynnwood Center Station to board the 12:30 pm train during the Lynnwood 1 Line extension opening celebrations on Friday, Aug. 30, 2024 in Lynnwood, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Transit board, new CEO have much to deliver

Sound Transit’s board hired one of its own as chief. The stakes for success are high for all involved.

Comment: Voters trumped cash in Wisconsin; keep it that way

Elon Musk’s $20 million to back a candidate failed. Strengthen laws to prevent campaigning by bribery.

Comment: Drug companies need to speak up about RFK Jr.’s FDA

With recent moves, companies are waking up to the fact that things are bad and could get worse.

Journalism support bill: Make tech companies pay share

My wife worked for The Herald for over 20 years. At that… Continue reading

Donate to food banks and lobby Congress to protect SNAP

With increasing numbers of hungry people, food banks are struggling to meet… Continue reading

Elon Musk’s DOGE work, contracts in conflict

In February Elon Musk’s company, Space-X, was awarded a contract with a… Continue reading

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, April 2

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Everett mayor Cassie Franklin delivers her State of the City address on Friday, March 28 in Everett, Washington. (Will Geschke / The Herald)
Editorial: The state of Everett amid the state of play

In her state of the city speech, Mayor Cassie Franklin makes the case for optimism amid dark clouds.

Welch: Latest state tax proposals threaten jobs and economy

Using fear of budget cuts, state lawmakers are taking the easy route with damaging tax increases.

Protect funding for vital service of public libraries

I am a patron of the Sno-Isle Library system. I have been… Continue reading

SAVE Act would hamper voting for many Americans

Our democracy works best when every eligible voter, regardless of background, can… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.