Four Reasons Why Nuclear Threat Should Not Be Taken Lightly
When someone mentions Russia might use nuclear weapons, they often get hushed with references to mutual assured destruction (MAD) and similar reasoning.
However, it’s not that easy.
If NATO is sure the Kremlin isn’t going to use nukes, then why doesn’t it confront it directly? If it means THEN Moscow will resort to nukes, it’s still MAD, so it’s kind of circular argument.
I believe we can’t be absolutely sure Putin will not give orders to apply nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic, in Ukraine or elsewhere.
Here are the four reasons that make me think so:
1. This may be Putin’s last argument if he’s out of luck in Ukraine
Although the Kremlin Führer wants much, much more, his “minimum plan” is to fully occupy Donetsk and Luhansk regions (and keep Crimea, of course).
If the war lasts for several years, Moscow is out of resources, and this minimum goal is not achieved — and even more so if Ukraine takes back some territories that were occupied pre-2022, — I don’t see how Putin can “save his face” before his population unless he shoots himself in his bunker or is removed from power in one way or another.
If he stays alive and in power, he may start nuclear blackmail — this time in earnest. And if the blackmail doesn’t work, we return to the same options.
2. The dictator expects NATO will not nuke Russia if he nukes Ukraine
NATO has no obligations to defend Ukraine if it’s subject to a nuclear attack, and, as far as I know, the alliance never clearly stated what it’s going to undertake if this happens.
Putin believes NATO will still be deterred by MAD. Sanctions or even complete isolation are for him just temporary sacrifices in his maniacal pursuit of greater rewards.
3. The apocalyptic scenario does not contradict Putin’s values
To understand Putin, it’s crucial to know his philosophical, even “metaphysical” background. The best place to start would be the works of Aleksandr Dugin who is sometimes called the totalitarian leader’s favorite philosopher.
Of course, Russian supremacy theories have centuries-long history, but Dugin’s books describe them in a pretty clear and accessible way, and the Kremlin’s current policies strikingly conform with what this awkward thinker was writing back in the 1990s.
Thus, in my opinion, those who talk about Putin without being familiar with Dugin — preferably with more than just one book — simply don’t get the whole picture and often don’t realize there’s more to it than pure geopolitics.
Dugin’s philosophy is firmly rooted in traditionalism à la René Guénon and Julius Evola interpreted through the prism of Orthodox Christian mysticism.
It’s a pessimistic view where the world — dominated by Western civilization — has long forgotten its Golden Age and the Garden of Eden and permanently decays and degenerates. Sooner or later, this will end in the Apocalypse, when the world will be cleansed and transformed, and then the New Golden Age will come, the Kingdom of God on Earth.
And, of course, those who oppose the “evils of the West”, the keepers of “Perennial Wisdom”, feel obliged to facilitate this outcome.
That’s a key worldview difference between the West and Russia. And if Putin is convinced enough in his sacred mission, there are serious reasons for concern.
4. Putin is a psychopath
There are reasonable grounds for thinking the dictator is not mentally stable.
He lies all the time. He has delusional ideas. He is megalomaniac and paranoid at the same time. He seems to have lost touch with reality.
Based on his behavior, a popular culture image of him would be a toxic ex with nukes. He started with threats and pestering, and then, seeing he can get away with it, proceeded to violence.
The question is how far this toxic ex is ready to go. Essentially, this depends on two factors: (a) whether he is suicidal and is ready to take everyone down with him, and (b) to what extent he is dependent on his surrounding and/or whether this surrounding is as delusional as he is and is willing to fulfill all his orders.
Conclusion
There are still many unknowns in the equation, but playing down the danger is wishful thinking. Strategies should be drawn with all scenarios in mind, taking into account differences in logic and morals (or the absence of both).