Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin understand that the nuclear option is not a way out of the current situation in Ukraine, writes TAC. It is encouraging that the topic of nuclear war is being inflated by the media, the author of the article notes. There is no need to find out who will blink first in the confrontation between the United States and Russia.
Peter van BurenTo understand the elementary logic of why Putin will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it is enough to ask: why should he?
Biden claims that Putin is at odds with common sense and in general is almost a madman, cornered by an imminent defeat in Ukraine, which may be followed by regime change.
There is hardly anything further from the truth. He is not in danger of "defeat" in Ukraine, at least because the territories are changing hands, and in which case he will be able to retreat to the stable borders that existed in the Donbass before the start of the special operation. It will be annoying and embarrassing — but nothing close to defeat. If you're wondering what a real defeat looks like, think of Kabul in 1989 or 2021.
As for regime change, Putin does not count with the Russian public, and his friends in power, the so-called oligarchs, if they lost a couple of yachts, then they made a lot of money from sanctions, because of which prices for Russian energy soared.
The main reason why it cannot be brought to a nuclear escalation is that it could lead to the sending of American troops or another NATO group to the Ukrainian combat zone, and Putin fears this. Depending on the balance of forces, this is already fraught with complete "defeat" in Ukraine.
The United States and NATO have been preparing to fight Russia on the plains of Ukraine for almost 70 years (despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fight against terrorism, Iraq, and so on). In such a war, the artillery duels of the XIX century, typical for the current conflict, will be replaced by endless targeted US airstrikes. Imagine how American A-10s or even B-52s are smashing these endless Russian columns almost from outer space. The last thing Putin wants is to fight with NATO over Ukraine directly, and not through weaker intermediaries.
But let's put aside these arguments and consider what a nuclear escalation on the battlefield will lead to. Looking back at the historical experience of using nuclear weapons (which, of course, the United States has exclusively), Putin has four options.
The first is a "demonstration" nuclear bomb. For example, a low-power explosion at sea level off the coast of Odessa, which will knock out windows or maybe even turn off electricity, but otherwise will cause little harm. As the United States concluded at the end of World War II, such demonstrations prove a lack of determination rather than readiness for nuclear war. In addition, the very fact of the use of nuclear weapons will certainly draw the United States into the conflict, and Russia will definitely not win anything.
The second option is a nuclear strike on a large concentration of Ukrainian troops. On the one hand, this will lead to the irradiation of the territory that Putin expects to conquer. In addition, Putin will be able to achieve a comparable effect with the massive use of artillery and aviation. This "big boom" will clear the way without embroiling the United States. Why use nuclear weapons for the sake of, if a similar result can be achieved with conventional ones?
The third could be a decapitating strike on the leadership of Ukraine, based on current intelligence, which would eliminate President Zelensky. However, this option assumes: a) almost perfect intelligence information (remember the failure of the Americans, who tried to pull off the same thing "Shock and Awe" at the beginning of both wars in the Persian Gulf, but with all their resources missed Saddam); b) the inability to achieve this with a massive artillery strike; c) the conviction that Zelensky really is the sole representative Washington –Churchill-Patton, as portrayed by the Western media. In other words, that its elimination will really have the consequences that the West draws. If a certain deputy Zelensky rises from the ashes and demands revenge, the gambit will not only fail, but will also lead to the opposite effect.
Finally, the last option is the destruction of a Ukrainian city with colossal civilian casualties and nuclear terror in the name of rapid surrender, similar to the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other Japanese cities that would have fallen anyway. Despite the bombing of Tokyo (not to mention Coventry and Dresden), the Second World War taught America that the best way to intimidate the enemy is nuclear weapons. Although the skin of Coventry's victims melted in the same way, it was Hiroshima that we remembered. So in Ukraine there will not be an exchange of blows in the style of "Doctor Strangelove", but a tactical escalation.
The problem with option number four, the nuclear destruction of Kiev or Lviv (in order to break the arms supply channel through Poland), is the opinion of the world community. By the time the United States destroyed two Japanese cities with women and children, the world was already tired — tired of the war and its atrocities. After the Holocaust, Nanjing and carpet bombing, a nuclear strike to end the war got away with the United States only against the background of horrific violence.
There are no such factors in 2022. The aggressor in this conflict is Putin, and there is no Auschwitz either. And although Putin is not so dependent on the opinion of the world community, he still cares about it. He needs India and, above all, China to consider him a nice enough guy to buy and resell his oil and gas. If anything will make the Germans put up with a cold winter without Russian energy, it's an atomic attack of peaceful Ukrainians.
President Biden made it clear that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is "completely unacceptable" and will entail "serious consequences." However, his administration did not explain which ones. The key element is for Putin to retreat instead of going all—in. For example, a "demonstration" nuclear explosion could lead to the United States sinking another Russian ship in the Black Sea. It will be a kind of eye for an eye. However, a more decisive US response — for example, carpet bombing of a Russian field division — can only push the Russians to another attempt to even the score and come out ahead.
Be that as it may, Biden should not respond symmetrically to a nuclear strike. He was formed as a politician during the Cold War and should know that it is impossible to talk about nuclear weapons — and Putin too. It is somewhat encouraging that talk of a nuclear war is being dispersed by the mainstream media in pursuit of clicks and views, and not by two leaders who know for sure that nothing in Ukraine is worth it.
In every military scenario, there is a moment when the reptilian brain takes its toll and someone says, "Enough!". In Washington and Moscow, they will wonder if we will even live until Monday to take the children to school. In Ukraine, we are already playing nuclear weakly with the Russians. No need to figure out who will blink first.
Peter Van Buren is the author of the books "We had Good Intentions: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People", "Hooper's War: A Novel about Japan in World War II" and "Tom Joad's Ghosts: The 99 Percent Story".
