Ever since President Putin put Russia’s nuclear deterrent on special alert the fear of a nuclear war has gone up a few notches. Most of this fear is, in my opinion, unfounded. I do not expect Russia to launch a nuclear weapon against a NATO country or one of its clear ‘friends’, in other words Sweden or Finland. I don’t expect MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to happen. In his mind Putin is restoring Russia not destroying Russia and a nuclear war ends Russia.

However I think there is a far greater threat of nuclear weapons being used against Ukraine. This war has been in the planning for a long time, it is the culmination of a series of moves that began years ago with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. So in 2020 Russia published an updated version of it’s nuclear doctrine. Many of the nuclear-weapons nations (apart from Israel which has never admitted to having nuclear weapons) has some sort of doctrine. It’s a document that outlines the principles and conditions under which they might use their nuclear arsenal. For many years there was a tacit no-first strike policy, so if no one fired first then no one would fire them at all.

The problem is in Article 4 of their doctrine:

The most contentious part of the document is Article 4, which describes the role of nuclear deterrence in the case of military conflict. It states that, during hostilities, ‘this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies’. The main implication of this is that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the means of preventing or ending military hostiles against Russia and its allies. 

This might be a reference to the concept of ‘escalate to de-escalate’, meaning the use of a limited nuclear strike to make an adversary end a conventional attack. This concept—and whether Russia has operationalized it in military planning—is strongly debated in the West. Although the text of Article 4 does not unequivocally confirm or dismiss Russian adherence to this concept, it seems to describe non-nuclear scenarios in which Russia might rely on nuclear weapons to achieve its military goals.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine moves the focus from non-Western threats

In other words Russia has given itself permission to use nuclear weapons to bring a war to a swift end and achieve victory. According to Olga Oliker, program director for Europe and Central Asia at International Crisis Group “Russia will not use nuclear weapons “for simple battlefield advantage.” But if Russia decides to use nuclear weapons, it “will do so intending to prevent further escalation and end the conflict as favorably (or acceptably) as possible for itself.”

The use of nuclear weapons to bring an end to a war is, after all, the reason they were used in combat for the first and second times. You might argue that the US’s cause was just and Putin’s is not but he is the one who can order the strike not you. I don’t think I can be any clearer that I believe using AND owning nuclear weapons is immoral and illegitimate and I think evil.

Let’s say, the war is dragging on, Russia’s army continues to make slow work of occupying Ukraine, sanctions are really starting to hurt, and the West throws ever more advanced weaponry to Ukraine. Russia is not going to be defeated but victory remains distant. Russia has given itself the permission to escalate a war (use nuclear weapons) in order to de-escalate (end the war). Let’s say Putin is feeling generous and gives Ukraine notice. He tells Ukraine to surrender and to evacuate Odessa. Ukraine refuses and Putin drops a nuclear missile on Odessa taking it out.

What happens next?

Russia has not attacked NATO, America or one of it’s allies. So there is no clear ground for a retaliatory strike against Moscow. Especially because Putin has just demonstrated that he is not afraid to use the weapons that no one has dared to use for over 75 years. In other words it’s highly unlikely and extremely dangerous for the US, UK, France (the only NATO countries with nuclear weapons) to use theirs against Russia and provoke a full-on nuclear war. It’s also extremely unlikely that they would then go to war with conventional forces for a few reasons. Firstly, it’s too late, it takes time to assemble a sufficient attack force and secondly because once again Russia has already demonstrated the willingness and ability to use nuclear force.

Instead Ukraine will be forced to surrender. Putin will have reminded everyone that this IS the world we live in and have lived ever since America dropped nuclear bombs on Japan. The worrying thing is that I’m not sure what anyone can do to stop him. Every action the West might use to bring him to the negotiating table might also push him to more desperate and radical measures. What would I do? I’d throw everything at the Russian economy to trigger massive unrest and collapse and hope the Russian people solve the Putin problem before he decides to solve the Ukraine problem the fast way.

I hope this scenario never happens but don’t be surprised if the clock ticks a bit closer to midnight.