We have noticed in recent weeks that there is an interesting binary opposition about the military methods used by Russian President Vladimir Putin in the invasion of Ukraine.
While reaching for the latest weapons such as hypersonic missiles, cyber attacks, and precision guided weapons, Putin has ordered an old way of fighting that threatens to siege and destroy big cities.
President Putin has effectively called on the heroes of Mariupol’s southeastern siege, besieged by Russian troops, to “if they surrender, they will not harm their homes, their companions, or their children.” Ukrainians refused as expected, but the sound of bombardment roared and cruise missiles flew, and war crimes were increasing day by day.
Putin’s outright over nuclear weapons, including an eerie remark by a spokesman for President Dmitry Peskov, who ordered the transition of nuclear forces to a “special position” and “you know about the famous black suitcase and red button” Intimidation is probably the most worrisome.
Putin also has children and loves his country so much that he must not want to escalate things to catastrophic levels. Do you want to avoid nuclear retaliation from the West, or risk using relatively low-power tactical nuclear weapons to shatter cities after civilians have almost evacuated?
It may be that far. But if you do, your name will be at the top of the historic War Crimes Hall of Fame. Even if the threat continues, I think it’s a line that Putin doesn’t want to cross in the first place.
Russia is more likely to use chemical weapons. President Putin foresaw Ukraine when it unfairly accused it of possession. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) takes the threat seriously, and Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg expects an agreement to provide additional support for “equipment that protects Ukraine against biological and chemical weapons, radioactive materials, and nuclear threats.” I will do it. “
Attacks of biological and chemical weapons will terrorize the inhabitants. Now that the Ukrainian government’s blitzkrieg “Plan A” has failed, that is the main goal of Mr Putin’s “Plan B” strategy. It can also be expected to have the effect of preserving the ever-decreasing number of cruise missiles and bombs. There is no way to empty a city faster than nerve agent smoke.
If Putin uses weapons of mass destruction, NATO’s avoidance of at least setting a no-fly zone over the west will probably be needed to secure a supply line of weapons from Poland to Ukraine.
It is expected that the Zelensky administration will have to move to Lviv in the west in preparation for the start of resistance activities throughout Ukraine. If there is an actual attack by chemical weapons, NATO may be required to dispatch ground troops to defend Lviv.
Another latest weapon that Russia has announced for practical use is the hypersonic missile (“Kinzhal”). The importance of launching the missile has a lot to do with the message to the West, not to defeat Ukraine. It is a warning to the United States and NATO that it not only possesses nuclear weapons, but can deploy them using platforms that cannot prevent them.
NATO should take Mr Putin’s signal seriously, but not overreact. On the Western side, there are many other options that can be expanded in stages, such as cyber warfare, conventional weapons attacks, and maritime response, if necessary.
More than a month after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin mainly uses the old strategy of destroying cities and terrorizing residents. But behind it, cyber-attacks and hypersonic missiles, perhaps chemical weapons, and state-of-the-art weapons, including even tactical nuclear weapons, are eerily approaching. The United States and its allies must now prepare plans for all and all of them.
(Former NATO Supreme Headquarters, James Stabridis, is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. The content of this column does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial department, Bloomberg Lp, or the owners.)
Original title:Maybe Putin Really Is Crazy Enough to Use Nukes: James Stavridis(excerpt)
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.