Jana Baldus from the Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research sees in Putin's rhetoric indications that Russia wants to legitimize the use of nuclear weapons. It's impossible to say whether his threats are serious, she says. "If this war has taught us anything, it's that we should also expect horror scenarios."
Nevertheless, Jana Baldus clearly rejects the alleged aim of Putin to stop arms deliveries to Ukraine: "If we did that, we would show Putin that issuing such threats works. It would then be more likely that this threat would be used more often in the future becomes."
ntv.de: When Putin announced the mobilization, he said: "If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will of course use all means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people." Actually, the Russian nuclear doctrine says that nuclear weapons are only used when the existence of the Russian state is endangered. Does that no longer apply?
Jana Baldus: That still applies. Russia's nuclear doctrine states that if their existence is threatened, they can respond with a nuclear strike. Of course, the annexation adds a big "but" to this, and the nuclear doctrine is thus extended to the case that a nuclear strike is possible even if Russia sees its interests threatened in the annexed areas. This goes far beyond the previous nuclear doctrine.
In his annexation speech last Friday, Putin said that Russia would "defend our country with all the forces and means at our disposal."
The annexation can thus legitimize a possible use of nuclear weapons. Ukraine's counter-offensive in the annexed areas certainly does not pose a threat to the existence of the Russian state - but from the Russian point of view it is probably a threat to Russia's "territorial integrity".
In his annexation speech, Putin specifically referred to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and said that the USA had set a precedent with this. Does that mean that, in his view, the taboo on using nuclear weapons is no longer taboo?
Under international law, the use of nuclear weapons would clearly violate international law, and by today's standards, looking back, so does what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think that Putin is also perfectly aware of that. It is another indication that Putin wants to legitimize the use of nuclear weapons. His argument alone weakens the nuclear taboo. This is of course highly problematic.
How can one assess whether such threats are serious?
You can't tell. The invasion as a whole has shown that we in the scientific community were often wrong in our assessment of the situation because we assumed that Putin was making supposedly rational decisions. It is always said that the use of nuclear weapons makes neither military nor political sense. But that goes for the whole war. Russia started it anyway. In this respect, it is difficult to classify such threats.
Military experts and secret services in the US and other NATO countries are trying to observe what is happening in Russia. Are there any movements there that might indicate that nuclear weapons are being used? Normally, the warheads are separate from the delivery systems, so they would have to be transported there. Or are troops responsible for nuclear weapons moving? When something like that happens, things get tricky. But so far there is no sign of it.
Over the weekend there were reports of possible movements: a Polish defense expert tweeted about a platoon assigned to a branch of the Russian Defense Ministry responsible for the Russian nuclear arsenal, the 12th Main Directorate of the Russian Defense Ministry, although he wrote himself that Video showing the train does not mean that there are preparations for a nuclear strike. And the Times reported that NATO had warned its members that Russia could test a nuclear-capable underwater drone called Poseidon off the coast of Ukraine. What do you think of such reports?
The move has been the subject of much debate on Twitter, but most military experts agree that it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. There was also an all-clear from the USA. And Poseidon is nuclear capable. But if the underwater drone were tested, that alone need not mean anything. It would be more of an attempt to scare the West. Anyway, I would be careful with such reports. If there were indeed reliable evidence that nuclear weapons might be used imminently, there would be a high probability that the general public would not be aware of it.
Would that surprise us?
I assume so.
How destructive are the so-called tactical nuclear weapons actually?
The term "small nuclear weapons" is often used. But you have to realize that most of these nuclear weapons are at least as powerful as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Up to 250,000 people lost their lives there. Using tactical nuclear weapons against a Ukrainian city would be devastating. There are no such things as "small" nuclear weapons, because all of these weapons have very, very far-reaching consequences.
What would Russia risk using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine?
Above all, they would risk a reaction from NATO and the USA. I think it is unlikely that the US and NATO would not respond, at least conventionally, to show that using nuclear weapons is the greatest possible taboo breach. This would isolate Russia politically. Many states that still support Russia or are indifferent to the war in Ukraine would probably turn their backs on Moscow if nuclear weapons were used because it would actually set a precedent. Russia would then be politically isolated.
Former US General David Petraeus has said that the US and its allies would eliminate all Russian conventional forces in Ukraine, including Crimea and the Black Sea, in the event of a nuclear attack on Ukraine, and he apparently meant that it would not -nuclear weapons would be used to escalate non-nuclearly. Is this the official position of NATO?
I don't know whether that is the official position of NATO. I would argue that in any case it would be important to respond to a possible nuclear strike in order not to normalize the nuclear threat. If Russia actually used nuclear weapons and the US and NATO didn't respond, what would happen? Nuclear weapons would be considered a legitimate weapon in wars; it could become normal to use nuclear weapons in armed conflicts. That must not happen. Equally important, however, is that NATO and the US do not respond with nuclear weapons.
You have already said that the use of nuclear weapons would bring Russia nothing militarily. Could there still be strategic advantages?
There is much speculation as to whether a nuclear detonation in the air could have military advantages because satellite links would be severed, making communication and reconnaissance impossible. But I don't think that would be decisive for the war, especially since in this case, too, as described, Russia would be sidelined internationally. A deployment against a city would only make militarily sense if the Russian goal is to destroy that city. Researchers refer to this as the nuclear holocaust.
A British security expert has speculated that Russia could attack Snake Island in the Black Sea. Sparsely populated, it has become a symbol of Ukraine's resistance to the Russian invasion and is located around 30 kilometers from the coast. Is something like that imaginable?
It would again be a signal of strength - although it is debatable whether it really is strength when an army command thinks it has to send out such a signal. Militarily it wouldn't make sense.
Bottom line: How likely do you think Russia is to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine?
Militarily and politically, I don't think it's likely. But, as I said, we've been wrong too many times in this war to rule out scenarios. If this war has taught us anything, it's that horror scenarios should also be expected.
What do you think the West should do to reduce the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons: stop delivering weapons or draw red lines?
I would say: don't give in, not even with the arms deliveries. If we did that, we would show Putin that issuing such threats works. This would make it more likely that this threat will be used more often in the future. So it seems important to me to make it clear that and how NATO and the US would react. The West should already be trying to find allies beyond NATO and the EU for the position that breaking a taboo like this is unacceptable. And it would be important to maintain and expand military contacts with Russia in order to make it clear to Russia that and how NATO would react.
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Jana Baldus
