by Kris Osborn, President, Center for Military Modernization
(Washington DC)
If Russian President Vladimir Putin’s consistent threatening to use nuclear weapons is purely a manipulative ploy to hold the world hostage with the prospect of large scale annihiliation .. and prevent NATO and the West from intensifying its support to Ukraine … it may have been working to some extent.
Suppose Putin is a rational actor with a pronounced survival instinct who would not actually risk quickly ending his life and autocratic rule in Russia in a nuclear exchange? Perhaps his repeated nuclear threats are merely inflammatory rhetoric aligned with Russia’s well-documented “escalate to win” nuclear weapons posture.
Conversely, does the West want to take the chance that Putin is purely manipulating and bluffing and provoke him beyond measure? Perhaps, despite his history of maintaining power and exhibiting a recognizable will to survive and persist, Putin may in fact determine some kind of nuclear attack might not end his life and rule in Russia?
President Biden, and many other are now saying that Putin’s inclination to use nuclear weapons, perhaps with a mind to determining that some kind of limited nuclear exchange would be winnable, is extremely real.
Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Belarus
For the first time since the days of the Soviet Union, Russia has now moved tactical nuclear weapons beyond its borders into Belarus, a move which further suggests Putin may in fact be inclined to use them.
In many respects, observers have regarded Putin as somewhat of a “rational” actor inclined to preserve himself and his authoritarian rule in Russia. Therefore, while the world knows Putin never hesitates to “threaten” the use of nuclear weapons, there do appear to be questions as to whether he might actually fire them, if backed into a corner. Putin does appear to have a survival instinct and somewhat of a Machiavellian ability to remain in power, so he quite likely understands that any use of nuclear weapons could quickly lead to his complete demise.
Meanwhile, powerful tactical nuclear weapons are now “arriving” in Belarus, a provocative and changing dynamic which does seem to highlight Russia’s well-known “escalate-to-win” strategy. Russia has long had an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, and is perceived as being willing to aggressively threaten, posture and intimidate rivals by adding high numbers of heavy and low-yield nuclear weapons.
Some of the atomic bombs delivered to Belarus were three times more powerful than the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, according to a story in Reuters. The Reuters story also cited ominous warnings from President Biden on Russia’s resolve to use nuclear weapons, saying “it’s real.”
Russia’s “escalate to win” strategy was cited as part of the Pentagon’s rationale for adding lower-yield, tactical nuclear weapons to the US arsenal. While some express concern that the addition of low-yield nuclear weapons to the US arsenal could “lower the threshold” to nuclear war and encourage thinking that there may be a possibility for a “winnable” nuclear weapons exchange. Pentagon advocates for the new weapons, which include a lower-yield variant of the submarine-launched Trident II D5 missile, explain that the concept is to widen the Pentagon’s deterrence posture for commanders by introducing a wider envelope of possibilities for holding Russia at risk or responding to an attack. Former Secretary of the Defense James Mattis told Congress at the time that the idea was to help bring Russia back to the negotiating table when it comes to its violation of the INF Treaty.
Although the Pentagon is now supporting Bradleys, Abrams and F-16s to Ukraine, there is still the question as to whether Putin’s nuclear threat strategies are, in fact, working. Sure enough the US and NATO has been hesitant and measured to take certain measures out of concerns about possible NATO-Russia escalation. This was the main reason why NATO did not support a no-fly zone at the beginning of the war. It is also the reason the Pentagon was reluctant to send MLRS, HIMARS, GMLRS, Tanks, Bradleys, Patriots and F-16s months ago. Perhaps this hesitation is well-placed, given Putin’s temperament and the possibility that, if sufficiently pressured and facing the end of his rule, he might in fact fire nuclear weapons.
Finally, it makes sense that the Pentagon and NATO do not want to engage in a direct NATO-Russia conflict in the air, however NATOs 5th-generation air superiority could arguably win the war quickly for Ukraine, should it be used. However, a deployment of US F-35s and F-22s in support of Ukraine would almost certainly lead to a major and extremely dangerous escalation. Perhaps the weapons now arriving will ultimately help Ukraine prevail, and it does seem as though much of the Pentagon’s caution and hesitation to avoid WWIII has been well-placed, even if some systems were delayed too long.
Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University
