Pirate's Cove

For all the articles and missives saying Putin is sick, he’s got mental illness, etc, perhaps the people pushing to get even more involved with the Ukraine war should rethink their positions

Putin is preparing for a nuclear showdown – we must be ready

Russia downing a US drone yesterday was a deliberate provocation. It is a concerning incident, but such brinkmanship feels destined to get worse. It is small fry compared to where things could go if we are not prepared.

Putin is in a corner, his position weakening every day as western tanks start to appear over the horizon and Zelensky’s spring offensive approaches. The great Russian push in eastern Ukraine appears to be petering out at massive human cost to the aggressors. Last weeks’ huge volley of missiles, including the much-vaunted ‘unstoppable’ hypersonic ones, have passed with a whimper, and sanctions are at last sending the Russian economy into freefall.

The Ukrainians intend to kick Russian troops out of eastern Ukraine but also the Crimea. Doing so would no doubt signal the end of Putin’s rule. But it would mark a dangerous moment. The dictator has relished repeating in public the story about his youth in Leningrad when he watched a cornered rat fight back. For years, the Kremlin has assiduously curated Putin’s image as a ruthless former KGB officer who is not afraid to take bold action to defend the Motherland, especially when facing off against the combined forces of the West.

Western audiences have largely fallen for this narrative. The reality is much more nuanced. Putin is far more rational and calculating than many of his opponents give him credit for. He has a nose for weakness, including for his own fragility, but it is not infallible. He is fond of the good life. As Garry Kasparov pointed out, ‘Putin wants to rule like Stalin but live like Abramovich’.

Yes, he does have a nose for weakness, which is why he took Crimea during the Obama-Biden years, and went into Ukraine during the Biden presidency.

In our study for the Heritage Foundation, we argue that there is another area where Western audiences have oversimplified the reality of Putin’s abilities – specifically on the nuclear question. We argue that the threat of Russian use of nuclear weapons is primarily a tactic to scare selected Western audiences, and thus weaken the link between Ukraine and its Western allies. Those who believe that the Russians themselves view them as conventional weapons of war are incorrect.

Even so, we cannot be sure that Russia will not use nuclear weapons as a ‘last resort’ in Ukraine. The Kremlin has laid the linguistic framework for their use. There are four circumstances in Russia’s latest nuclear doctrine which can justify nuclear weapons deployment: an imminent use of nuclear weapons against Russia, actual nuclear use against Russia, a threat to inhibit Russia’s control of its nuclear weapons, and a threat to the existence of Russia. Whilst none of those conditions apply in the Ukraine war, the notion of “threat” is being re-interpreted by the Russian leadership.

Backing Putin into a corner would be a bad idea. Pumping high end weapons like fighter jets into Ukraine is a bad idea. It would be directly engaging Putin from the West. But

Putin’s dreams of Ukraine re-incorporated into Russia, of breaking up Nato, and of Russia leading a global anti-Western alliance are collapsing about him. Disaster for Russia’s imploding armed forces may well await, and at some point, Ukraine’s armed forces will likely threaten to break Russia’s land corridor linking Crimea to the Donbas. At that point, Putin will make one of the most fateful decisions of the century: whether to employ nuclear or chemical weapons. The U.S. and UK must act now to minimise that threat and to ensure the protection of the American and British publics and allies.

So, the authors, Col Hamish de Bretton-Gordon OBE, a former commander of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment and Bob Seely, a Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, seemed to be making the argument that the West should be very, very careful in its support for Ukraine, then push for the US and UK to act, saying Western governments should

First, they must reassure the public that they are aware of the threat of Russian nuclear weapons in extremis. Nuclear threats are not mere bluff.

Second…The US and its allies should improve how they detect and monitor radiation in case of nuclear use, a missile strike on a nuclear facility, or an accident stemming from a nuclear plant located in an area of military operations.

Thirdly, ensure that any use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia is met by a robust Western and global response that is calibrated, relies on conventional weapons, and is informed by an understanding of Russian behaviour and thinking.

Fourth, we need to keep channels of communication with Moscow open, even if the Kremlin is not responsive.

Are you reassured?