Russia‘s economy is smaller than that of Italy, and its military has yet to impress two weeks into its invasion of Ukraine. But the West is treating the crisis like a potential precursor to World War III for one simple reason: Moscow’s massive stockpile of nuclear warheads and the growing fear that Russian President Vladimir Putin may resort to using the world’s most devastating weapons.
While most of the Western media’s focus has centered on the unfolding horror on the ground, there’s been far less discussion about the potential for unprecedented nuclear escalation that could potentially lead to millions of casualties across the continent.
But Mr. Putin himself has put the issue on the table, warning NATO nations last month of “consequences you have never seen” if they intervene in Ukraine and days later putting Russia‘s nuclear forces on an undefined state of “special combat readiness.”
“No one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to the destruction and horrible consequences for any potential aggressor,” Mr. Putin warned on his February 24 declaration of war. Russia, he added, has “one of the most potent nuclear powers and also has a certain edge in a range of state-of-the-art weapons.”
Russia‘s nuclear warheads cache — the largest in the world at more than 6,200, according to figures compiled by the Arms Control Association — has added an untold level of danger and complexity to the current military campaign in Ukraine. Other recent conflicts such as last year’s Armenia-Azerbaijan clash, ongoing civil wars in Yemen, Ethiopia and Syria, and a host of other battles around the world have killed more combatants but lacked a nuclear element, and the risk for major escalation was relatively low.
The war in Ukraine, on the other hand, has the potential to spiral out of control and quickly devolve into a world-altering nuclear showdown. U.S. officials said they’ve seen little evidence Mr. Putin followed through on a claim that he‘d put his nation’s nuclear assets on high alert, but analysts warn that the U.S. and its NATO allies cannot write off the prospect of an increasingly erratic Russian leader turning to nukes as his last option to reclaim old Soviet territory across Eastern Europe if his offensive bogs down.
“Remember, few thought Putin would launch a full-scale invasion, which has now become the largest assault in Europe since World War II. Strong powers completely failed to deter a conventional attack by a weak one, so we should now be prepared for deterrence to fail again,” Gordon Chang, a longtime foreign affairs analyst and distinguished senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, wrote in a recent piece for Newsweek.
“If Putin‘s nuke threats prevent others coming to Ukraine‘s rescue, he will undoubtedly employ similar warnings to grab the Baltic States, Poland and other areas,” he said. “The ambitious Russian leader wants to reassemble the Soviet Union, but it looks like he also harbors even grander ambitions, such as incorporating all the territories of the old Russian Empire. He may even be looking for more than that.”
U.S. intelligence chiefs, including Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, told Congress this week they have detected no “unusual” activity in Russia‘s nuclear forces despite Mr. Putin‘s order. But they also warned that Mr. Putin is likely to grow increasingly desperate if his military gamble in Ukraine fails to pay off.
“Putin feels aggrieved the West does not give him proper deference and perceives this as a war he cannot afford to lose,” Ms. Haines said, noting that Russia‘s army has already “begun to loosen its rules of engagement to achieve their military objective” in Ukraine.
President Biden late last month simply said “no” when asked whether Americans should be concerned about a potential nuclear war. Mr. Chang said that stance is misguided.
“The correct answer was ‘yes,’” he said.
Nuclear escalation
Russia‘s nuclear weapons arsenal remains the world’s biggest, edging out its only real competitor, the U.S. A legacy of the Soviet Union’s status as a global superpower, Russia has at least 1,458 strategic warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers, according to date from the D.C.-based Arms Control Association.
Moscow has thousands of other nuclear warheads in its cache, though about 1,760 of those are theoretically retired and awaiting disarmament. Complicating the equation is the fact that some of Russia‘s nuclear weapons are lower-yield, so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons that, while devastating, could be dropped in a theater like Ukraine without immediately threatening the U.S. or its NATO allies. Russia in recent years has embraced what strategists call an “escalate-to-de-escalate” nuclear strategy that in part envisions deploying a lesser nuke in a conflict and putting the onus of the adversary to respond or stand down.
The U.S. has more than 5,500 nuclear warheads of its own. China, France, Britain, Pakistan, India and Israel have much smaller arsenals.
But numbers only tell part of the story. A much greater threat lies in Mr. Putin‘s apparent willingness to use nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of them, to get what he wants in Ukraine and beyond.
It’s something of a trump card for Mr. Putin. His nation’s military might is coming under serious question amid a blundering campaign in Ukraine that has moved much slower than expected. And Russia‘s economic power was already severely limited, even before the West unleashed an unprecedented slate of economic sanctions and major companies across all economic sectors announced they’d stop doing business in Russia.
Against that backdrop, nuclear weapons remain arguably Russia‘s best way to get the world’s attention. Some of Mr. Putin‘s top aides have also begun to flirt with the nuclear card. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov last week told his country’s RIA News Agency that a third world war would indeed include nuclear weapons — a not-so-subtle warning to the West as it tries to stop any further incursions into Eastern Europe.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken just this week stated unequivocally that America is prepared for war if Russian troops try to cross into NATO territory, including the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, which were formerly part of the Soviet Union.
“We will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of our collective power,” Mr. Blinken said.
The “full force” of NATO‘s power, in theory, would include nuclear weapons. Some Western officials have offered their own warnings about the prospects of a full-blown nuclear exchange in Europe.
“Yes, I think that Vladimir Putin must also understand that the Atlantic alliance is a nuclear alliance. That is all I will say about this,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters late last month.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenksyy, who has desperately pressed NATO for greater military support to ward off Russian forces, dismissed Mr. Putin‘s nuclear talk as “a bluff.”
“It’s one thing to be a murderer. It’s another to commit suicide,” Mr. Zelenskyy told the German publication Die Zeit in a March 3 interview. Mr. Putin‘s threat, he added “shows a weakness. You only threaten the use of nuclear weapons when nothing else is working. I am sure that Russia is aware of the catastrophic consequences of any attempt to use nuclear weapons.”
But U.S. officials say they don’t have the luxury of being complacent where nuclear weapons are concerned.
Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. D. Scott Berrier, testifying alongside Ms. Haines at a House Select Committee on Intelligence hearing Tuesday, warned that the danger of nuclear escalation in eastern Europe is real and that Mr. Putin has invested in developing new tactical nuclear arms that provide an asymmetric military advantage.
“I also believe that when he says something, we should listen very, very carefully and take him at his word,” he told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday.
— Bill Gertz contributed to this report