Russian President Vladimir Putin. Sputnik/Sergei Ilyin/Pool via Portal
In the most recent one Munich Security ConferenceThe teacher Graham Allisonprominent academic John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard Universityexpressed concern about the possible actions of the Russian President, Wladimir Putin, related to the use of nuclear weapons. Allison warned that if cornered on the battlefield, Putin could resort to nuclear strikes, despite the devastating consequences that would bring.
You may be interested in: Akiyama Nobumasa: “We must deal with the hypothesis of an imminent threat as long as nuclear weapons exist”
During the panel titled “Turning Back the Clock (at the End of the World): Lessons from Nuclear Security”which took place in Germany on February 16, Allison pointed out Putin's threat to carry out nuclear strikes against Ukraine represented the most dangerous moment since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
According to Allison, “If battlefield conditions force Putin to choose between a decisive loss and the use of nuclear weapons, I bet he will continue to carry out nuclear attacks now.”.
You may be interested: Alexei Navalny's wife denounced that the Russian opposition leader's body was “abused.”
This dire forecast underscores the seriousness of the current situation in Eastern Europe and the potential impact of a broader conflict between them Russia and Ukraine. Although dialogue and diplomacy remain the preferred tools for managing geopolitical tensions, warnings from experts like Allison are a reminder of the urgency of seeking peaceful solutions and avoiding escalations that could have catastrophic consequences for global security.
In a thoughtful tone, Allison expressed her relief at and pointed out the US and Europe's reluctance in the face of Putin's nuclear threat “Fortunately, the excellent statesmanship of the United States and Europe convinced Putin that this was a bad idea.”At least for now.
You may be interested: They reveal that Russia has been preparing for a possible Chinese invasion for years
To return briefly to the 1962 missile crisis just mentioned, in comparison to that dark episode in history in which United States and the Soviet Union Due to the stationing of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, they were on the brink of nuclear war just three years after Cuba was founded communist dictatorship of Fidel CastroThe current situation presents similar challenges in terms of geopolitical stability and the nuclear threat.
Fortunately, in 1962, The missile crisis was resolved through direct negotiations between US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.with the withdrawal of weapons from Cuba in return for the United States' commitment not to invade the island and the withdrawal of US missiles Türkiye. This diplomatic solution prevented an escalation towards nuclear war and laid the foundation for a period of détente between the two superpowers. In Allison's words: “A long period of peace.”
US President John F. Kennedy on the left and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro on the right in a 1962 photo during the missile crisis.
In the current case, the concerted actions of the United States, Europe and even the Chinese regime itself have succeeded in dissuading Putin from nuclear attacks against Ukraine, but for how long?
However, the threat remains latent and it is crucial to find peaceful and lasting solutions to prevent the conflict from escalating.
One possible way to counter Putin's threat is international diplomacy. World leaders have committed to direct and constructive discussions to address the security concerns of all parties involved. These talks could focus on nuclear disarmament, arms control and promoting regional stability. However, Putin's pride does not seem to allow him to back down until he retains at least some illegally occupied Ukrainian territories to satisfy his nostalgic whim for a revival of the defunct Soviet Union.
The Harvard expert believes it is essential to strengthen the verification and compliance mechanisms of international nuclear non-proliferation treaties. This, in his view, would help ensure that all parties fulfill their obligations and reduce the risk of misuse of such weapons in conflict situations.
Ultimately, preventing nuclear conflict requires a strong commitment from all international actors, particularly powers, to promote peace, security and stability around the world. The legacy of the Cuban Missile Crisis reminds us of the importance of diplomacy and dialogue in preventing nuclear conflict and protecting human well-being.
During the Munich Security Conference Allison noted the extraordinary duration of the nuclear peace since the end of the year Second World War.
“We have entered the 79th year without great power wars since World War II. “This is a long, very long peace without historical precedent,” said the academic.
The professor also emphasized the fragility of this peace and the possibility that it could be threatened in the future.
“I think it’s unlikely to be preserved for the next generation.”he warned.
Professor Graham Allison, senior scholar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
In this international context, where the nuclear threat hangs like a lingering shadow over world peace, the debate about the nuclear arsenals of the major powers and their possible use is becoming more relevant every day. The latest expansion of China's nuclear arsenal up to levels that could be considered equivalent USA And Russiarepresents a complex scenario for global stability.
This realignment of the balance of nuclear energy results in what Professor Allison refers to as “The problem of the three nuclear bodies”a dynamic that could require a “radical rethink across the strategic community,” not just on the nuclear posture but also on the national security of the powers involved.
After 78 years since the last use of nuclear weapons in war and 79 years without great power conflict Second World WarThe current stability is seen as a historic, albeit fragile, achievement.
According to Allison,The odds of maintaining this period of peace and renunciation of nuclear weapons since 1945 “would have been 1,000 to 1.”. This period of peace is viewed as “a tremendous achievement of international statecraft,” highlighting the unlikely repetition of this achievement in future generations.
Allison emphasizes that Putin's recent threat is a telling event The nuclear problem not only persists, it is also far from being solved. The seriousness with which the threat was taken, even while imagining “nuclear Armageddon” scenarios, underscores the continued need for dialogue and strategy to prevent escalation into conflict.
Despite the current limited number of weapons states, concerns about possible nuclear proliferation remain. The reference to the predictions of John Kennedy in 1963, which predicted up to 30 nuclear states by the 1970s, underscores the success of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, this performance is also considered fragile and vulnerable to pressure and requires constant vigilance.
The current nuclear balance, shaped by the determination of the three parties involved – USA, China And Russia – Maintaining parity, according to Allison, represents a mathematically insoluble challenge. The need to adjust the national security situation in a context where a two-front conflict could be contemplated requires an innovative and cooperative approach that guarantees international peace and stability.
The inclusion of Bill Burns as director of the INC, considered one of the top Putin watchers in the United States, offers a compelling perspective on the seriousness of nuclear threats in the current scenario. His assessment of the situation underlines the importance of diplomacy and leadership in crisis management.