“I order the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff to put the deterrent forces of the Russian army on special combat alert,” Vladimir Putin ordered this Sunday during a interview with its military leaders broadcast on television. “It’s understood,” replied the Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu.
This Sunday afternoon, on the fourth day of the fighting in Ukraine, this order from Vladimir Putin, which he justifies as a response to the “belligerent declarations of NATO” and to the economic sanctions against Russia, created a new international shock wave. “This is dangerous rhetoric. It is behavior that is irresponsible,” declared Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO.
Jean-Marie Collin, nuclear disarmament expert, spokesperson forICAN-France(French section of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, deciphers for 20 minutes this new escalation of tensions.
By the deterrent force of the Russian army, should we clearly understand “nuclear deterrence”?
There is no doubt yes. These deterrent forces of the Russian army evoked by Vladimir Putin are indeed all the nuclear weapons devices that Russia possesses. Offensively, they include ground missiles, strategic bombers, ballistic missile nuclear submarinessurface ships… Today, President Putin has the first nuclear arsenal in the world with just over 6,000 warheads, including 1,600 which are already deployed, ie can be used quickly. And Russia has this ability to reach any corner of the globe with its nuclear submarines and only a small percentage of this arsenal would be enough to change life on Earth.
We easily have in mind the images of the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, in 1945… Are nuclear weapons in the hands of States much more powerful today?
Yes, very clearly. Depending on the weapon systems, we are talking about powers multiplied by four, ten, or even 25 for certain weapons in the hands of Russia. But it’s not all about power. Today, nuclear weapons are intended to strike military and civilian infrastructure, mainly in cities. However, in all of these or at least in their vicinity, there are today sensitive infrastructures which did not exist in Japan in 1945. Nuclear power plants, oil or chemical sites classified Seveso [sites industriels présentant des risques d’accidents majeurs]. That’s also what you have to keep in mind when talking about a nuclear threat: this potential chain of disasters. And if Putin targets Europe and North America this Sunday, any nuclear attack will have consequences, one way or another, on all the countries of the planet. Whether through influxes of refugees, disruptions in the food supply but also, in the event of several attacks and responses, the possible occurrence of a nuclear winter*. It is not falling into catastrophism to say that. These elements have been repeated over the past fifteen years by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by the UN, or at conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. The nuclear powers are aware of these risks and have been playing with fire for years.
Since the Cuban Missile Crisis [du 14 au 28 octobre 1962]is this the first time that the nuclear threat has been agitated with such force?
Effectively, there is Had that Cuban Missile Crisis which for fifteen days brought us extremely close to the use of nuclear arsenals. Especially when on October 27 an American plane was shot down over Cuba during a reconnaissance mission. We are today in an equally tense context which did not begin this Sunday with this order from Vladimir Putin. Already last week, during an interview between the Russian President and Emmanuel Macron, the former recalled that Russia had a nuclear arsenal. He will do it a second time afterwards. For his part, Jean-Yves Le Drian, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, responded by saying that “Putin had to understand that the Atlantic alliance was also a nuclear alliance”. Of course, one can see there demonstrations of force and the expression of this belief that this nuclear arsenal is precisely what prevents the States from going to war. The problem is that opposite, there is a Russian president whose rationality raises questions. We thus arrive at this new level crossed this Sunday. As with the 1962 missile crisis, we rely on luck, hoping that the threats will never be carried out.
What should be the response of NATO countries to begin a reduction in tensions?
The first thing is to urge Putin to remove the alert status of his nuclear forces. It is also to be hoped that the NATO countries do not follow Russia in this escalation, in turn preparing their nuclear arsenals. It is also urgent to initiate a genuine process of talks with a view to ending this conflict in Ukraine. But above all, in the longer term, it will be necessary to finally implement nuclear disarmament. There is already a United Nations International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Tian). It was ratified by around fifty states in October 2020, which led to its entry into force on January 22, 2021. But France, the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain have done everything to that this treaty does not succeed. In July, the first meeting of the states that have ratified the Tian will be held. We would like at least these nuclear powers, including France, to take part, at least as observers. That they can understand why the majority of countries want this military denuclearization.