Where is Putin’s red line as he claims parts of Ukraine?

The Russian rhetoric about the possible use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine does not pass unnoticed by the United States. In recent weeks, both President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken, as well as National Security Adviser Sullivan, have insisted that such an escalation in the battle would have “catastrophic consequences” and that the Russians should stop their “casual talk”. This message – menacing, but deliberately vague – has also been conveyed to the Kremlin through public and private channels, they say.

That reaction is calmer than the nervous coverage in American media suggests. Blinken was asked in a TV interview whether “America has a plan”. We have, said Blinken. “And is that a plan to prevent World War III?”

On Friday, the Russian president called the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 a “precedent”

On the other hand, Mark Cancian considers the chance that the Russians will soon use a nuclear weapon “not very big”. Cancian, Colonel of the Marines Retd and now attached to the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington, says over the phone that little has actually changed on this point since the start of the invasion of Ukraine. He calls the threats from President Putin and his security adviser Dmitry Medvedev “rattling with the saber”.

Missile Silos

Cancian initially, last Thursday, has three clues to think so:

Speaking with his Security Council last week, Putin said: “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all available means to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff.” In that speech, Cancian underlined on Thursday, he did not also bring under the umbrella of Russia the Ukrainian territories occupied by Russian troops, which had “chosen” for independence in a so-called referendum, which must be protected by “all means” – implicitly. : with nuclear weapons if necessary.

Also read: What makes Putin’s war so dangerous

The second clue is the mobilization that Putin announced last week. Cancian: “There are three ways for Russia to end the war: more troops, nuclear weapons and a peace agreement. The latter is out of the question, Ukraine is not interested in that now. Putin has opted for mobilization, for stepping up the conventional war. I took that as an explicit statement that Russia does not want to use nuclear weapons.”

Finally, US intelligence agencies make no mention of any activity that could point to the use of nuclear weapons: “Movements around missile silos, providing protective equipment to Russia’s own soldiers,” Cancian said, according to the Americans.

Deadlines

Anthony Cordesman adds a fourth clue over the phone. “It is unlikely that Putin would use nuclear weapons without prior demand and a deadline. When you see that, the threat of a nuclear attack is getting closer.”

Cordesman has a long career in government, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. He was the chief security adviser to Senator John McCain. He also considers the use of nuclear weapons by Russia unlikely. “But Putin has also made the unlikely decision to invade Ukraine.”

Whatever Cordesman is saying: “Ask a hundred different analysts and you’ll get a hundred different answers. Everyone is speculating about what is going on in Putin’s mind in the Kremlin.”

What about the threats from Medvedev, who taunted that the US and Europe are far too afraid to die in a nuclear apocalypse and therefore will not dare to do anything “whatever weapon is deployed”? You really can’t tell from that, says Cordesman. “That’s the role Medvedev plays: honking Putin’s threats.” According to him, they make little impression in the West. “Those countries will continue to equip the Ukrainian army.”

Surprising and worrying

On Friday, Putin delivered a seething speech in the Kremlin, welcoming the four regions where the referendums had been held into the Russian Federation and branding the West as an “enemy”, the puppeteer of the Ukrainian government. He called the US atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “a precedent.” And his spokesman said earlier in the day that an attack on those four regions would be interpreted as an attack on Russia.

Also read this analysis about the speech: Putin has now burned all the ships behind him

“That is a surprising and worrying statement,” said Mark Cancian on Friday. “It seems that Putin is moving in that direction, although you can only really take such an important statement as his policy if he says it himself in so many words. Should he now expand the nuclear umbrella, then from now on we will see discussions about the question: where is the new red line. Air raids and shelling? Or an ‘invasion’ by Ukrainian ground troops?”

Cancian cannot imagine that the US government would consider a preemptive strike in the event that it sees signs of a nuclear offensive in Russia. “In that case we would see the same as before the invasion. The Americans would publicize Russia’s plans and show the world that something unacceptable was imminent: the first nuclear attack since World War II. After that, for example, they would station Patriot missiles in Eastern Europe.” The revulsion of both Cancian and Cordesman at such speculative questions is audible.

One more then. If the situation doesn’t change quickly through either an agreement or a nuclear escalation, then how? Cancian: “Putin hopes the mobilized reinforcements will hold the front in place, preferably until winter. Then the cold, high energy prices and inflation will lower morale – the morale of Europeans. The Poles, the Balts and the other Eastern Europeans are not likely to give in easily, but sentiment among the other Europeans may change. Public opinion can then demand a ceasefire. That’s exactly what Putin wants. A truce, negotiations and keeping as much of the territory that the Russians occupy as possible.”