Vladimir Putin could resort to the use of nuclear weapons in his war against Ukraine if the Russian despot feels his forces are facing defeat on the battlefield, a retired US Army brigadier general has warned.
Kevin Ryan, who served as chief of staff of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command, said nuclear war was a “totally viable” option for Putin if Ukrainian forces make gains on the battlefield and even recapture captured territories such as Crimea.
Ryan, who also served as a defense attaché for Russia, said Moscow is at war not only with Ukraine but also with the West – and for that reason Putin is much more likely to view the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a “prudent deterrent.” ‘.
“Detonating a nuclear weapon in Ukraine may seem like ‘overkill’ in a war against Ukraine, but in a war against the West it could be seen as a prudent deterrent,” Ryan tells Web.
“The bottom line is that the use of a nuclear weapon is entirely feasible and the negative consequences could be ignored if the alternative was defeat.”
He says that if Ukrainian forces were actually making progress on the battlefield, Putin and his military leaders would not be deterred by the possibility of irradiating areas within their occupied territories with tactical nuclear weapons.
These nuclear weapons can have a yield of up to 100 kilotons – five times more than the American atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
A Russian Iskander-K missile was fired during a military exercise at a training range in the Luzhsky Range near St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2017
Kevin Ryan, who served as chief of staff of the Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command, said nuclear war was a “totally viable” option for Putin if Ukrainian forces make gains on the battlefield and even recapture captured territories such as Crimea. Pictured: Iskander rocket launcher
“As for Russia irradiating areas within their occupied territories, I think Russian leaders would weigh that against losing a war — or against losing Crimea or a large part of their own army,” Ryan says. “In such cases, this is not a bad deal for Russia.”
Ryan says the only reason Putin hasn’t deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine yet is because Kiev’s much-anticipated counteroffensive has stalled before a second winter.
Ukrainian soldiers failed to make significant progress during their counteroffensive against Russian troops entrenched in captured areas, and casualties on both sides – already in the hundreds of thousands – continue to rise.
“The only reason we haven’t seen tactical nuclear weapons is that Ukraine’s counteroffensive wasn’t as successful as hoped,” Ryan says.
Indeed, since the start of his all-out invasion of Ukraine, Putin has warned that Moscow was prepared to use “all available means” to deter attacks on Russian territory that are considered existential – a reference to its nuclear arsenal.
Russia is believed to have around 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons – compared to America’s 100 – including bombs that can be carried by aircraft, warheads for short-range missiles and artillery shells.
The tactical nuclear weapons are intended for use on the battlefield and have a short range and low yield compared to much more powerful nuclear warheads built into long-range missiles that can destroy cities.
Moscow sees them as a counterbalance to NATO’s strength in modern conventional weapons since the Cold War.
“Although the West has relied more heavily on conventional weapons since the end of the Cold War, Russia must continue to rely on tactical nuclear weapons to be prepared to achieve its objectives on the battlefield,” Ryan said.
“This is primarily because Russia has not been able to satisfactorily modernize its conventional armed forces.”
“The bottom line is that Russian military leaders view tactical nuclear weapons as a valid and useful escalation tool,” Ryan says. “Putin too.”
In fact, in recent years, Russia has raised the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in its security doctrine – from “situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation” in 2000 to a more precise “aggression requiring the use of conventional weapons.” includes if…” “The existence of the state is in danger” in 2014.
For Putin, this would mean a loss of territory such as Crimea, which in turn would endanger the despot’s position of power.
And Ryan warned that Ukraine was just “the first battleground” of Putin’s war with the West, noting that Putin was preparing Russia for a “major conflict” by moving troops and nuclear weapons into Belarus.
Ukrainian soldiers of the 57th Brigade in their combat position prepare the explosive artillery attack in the direction of Kupiansk, Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine, November 27
Ryan, who also served as defense attaché for Russia, said Moscow was at war not only with Ukraine but also with the West – and for that reason Putin (pictured on November 29) would be much more likely to see the use of tactical means Nuclear weapons as a “prudent deterrent”
Officials in Moscow and Minsk said the warheads sent to Belarus could be carried by Belarusian Su-25 ground attack aircraft or installed on short-range Iskander missiles.
“The West has not yet fully woken up to the reality that we are in a war with Russia,” Ryan says. “Countries like Poland and the Baltics believe Putin’s words and actions and think we are at war.”
“But the USA, Great Britain and much of NATO? I think they believe this is just a war between Russia and Ukraine – one that we can help on the sidelines.”
In fact, stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, which shares a 673-mile border with Ukraine, will allow Russian aircraft and missiles to reach potential targets there more easily and quickly if Moscow decides to use those weapons.
It would also expand Russia’s ability to attack several NATO members in Eastern and Central Europe with tactical nuclear weapons that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said were about five times more powerful than the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
“Ukraine is the first battleground of Putin’s war with the West,” Ryan warned. “There are indications that Russia is preparing for a larger conflict than what is happening in Ukraine.”
He noted that Putin has ordered his military to expand to over 1.5 million active-duty troops by 2026, increased his military budget to $109 billion by 2024 and moved troops and nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus.
“This suggests that Putin is doing more than just making up for the losses of his ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine,” Ryan says.
Putin and his cronies have been warning for months that the war in Ukraine could turn into a nuclear war. The Russian despot warned in June that “there will be no winners, including America” in a third world war.
In a thinly veiled threat, Putin said: “The United States pretends not to be afraid of an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, but sensible people there obviously do not want a third world war to occur.”
“In the event of a third world war, there will be no winners, including America.”
And earlier this year, Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned that Ukraine’s attempts to regain control of Crimea as part of its counteroffensive were a “threat to the existence of the Russian state” – something that would require a nuclear response from the country justified security doctrine.
“Every day that Western weapons are supplied to Ukraine brings the nuclear apocalypse closer,” Medvedev said at the time.
Ukrainian military analysts said Putin’s goal was to use “nuclear blackmail” to stop Ukraine’s Western allies from supplying Kiev with more weapons during their counteroffensive.
But Ryan says the West needs to supply Ukraine with more weapons, which would mean Kiev winning a “decisive” victory over Russia. To that end, Ryan says Ukraine must become a member of NATO so that the nation – and the West – can achieve its goals of a “sovereign and free Ukraine.”
“We need a Ukraine that is part of NATO and the EU as a bulwark against the malicious actions of a Russia under the control of Putin and his followers,” Ryan says.
‘The goals [of Ukraine being sovereign and free] “This will not be won at the negotiating table,” he adds. “They must be enforced by Ukraine and the West and protected with military force.”
“We should not delay Ukraine’s accession to both NATO and the EU,” Ryan stressed. “If we fail to achieve our goals against the Russia we face today, we will have an even harder time achieving them against the Russia Putin is building.”