Russian President Vladimir Putin showed the nuclear card again this week in an attempt to dissuade the West from taking another step in its support for Ukraine. “All of this is a threat [desatar] “A conflict with nuclear weapons and with it the destruction of civilization,” the president told the Russian parliament following comments from French leader Emmanuel Macron, who said on Monday that the use of military personnel “cannot be ruled out.” of NATO. This statement was qualified the next day by saying that the president did not refer to these troops going into battle, but rather that they would limit themselves to training Kiev's troops in the hinterland. The Kremlin has a very large arsenal totaling around 6,000 nuclear warheads, a similar number to the United States. What makes the difference, however, are its 2,000 tactical warheads, “small” nuclear bombs that do not appear in the disarmament treaties and are at the center of an important debate among Western experts: If the Kremlin triggered an explosion, would that trigger a mushroom? Cloud as a warning? in case you get cornered in Eastern Europe?
The USA and Russia take 90% of the planet's atomic bombs. Just a year ago, Putin abrogated the New Start Agreement with Washington on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Frozen in practice since the pandemic, with Moscow not allowing Americans to monitor its arsenals since 2020, this pact limits the destructive power of both powers: up to 700 active means of attack between intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarines and bombers, and 1,550 nuclear warheads, in addition to another 800 “inactive” non-stationed installations. In practice, both sides are suspected of having around 200 additional nuclear warheads each.
These are weapons that could destroy the world in minutes. Added to this are thousands of Cold War-era nuclear warheads that remain locked away in warehouses and would take time to deploy. The actual numbers are secret, although the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that Russia and the United States had 5,889 and 5,244 nuclear warheads, respectively, in 2023.
This is where the so-called “tactical bombs” come into play, designed to destroy specific targets – a fleet or a base – and not entire cities, but also fearsome cities. According to the Pentagon, Russia has about 2,000 nuclear warheads of this type.
Official Russian military doctrine would accept the use of the world's most powerful weapons “when the existence of the state is in danger,” according to the latest revision of the document signed by Putin in 2020. However, the Kremlin began considering the use of these weapons in conflicts came to light two decades ago when it observed NATO's technological superiority in wars such as the one in Yugoslavia and the two in Iraq.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without restrictions.
Subscribe to
Western experts disagree that Moscow could resort to the “escalation to de-escalation” tactic. This means you first use a tactical bomb to force the opponent to negotiate. Mark Schneider, a former senior US Defense Department official, recalls that Russian doctrine considers this option “in response to large-scale aggression using conventional weapons.” Kristin Ven Bruusgaard, an analyst at Chatham House, assures that Russian doctrine “is not that simple” and Moscow would be more cautious about a possible NATO response after this action.
The problem for the Atlantic Alliance is that it doesn't know what to expect from Putin. “The contradiction between the official line – the Kremlin – and reality casts doubt on all past and future Russian nuclear doctrines,” warns Nikolai Sokov, a researcher at the center, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – prepared by researchers at the Manhattan Project. of disarmament and non-proliferation in Vienna.
“In its war against Ukraine, Russia “used” its nuclear weapons as a form of offensive deterrence to cover its aggression, rather than for defensive deterrence purposes – to avoid attack.” “All this contradicts what is stated in all official documents, from national security concepts to military doctrines,” adds Sókov, who was one of the Russian negotiators of the first disarmament treaties with the US and also believes it is possible that Moscow is relying on “escalation rather than de-escalation.”
The Kremlin's most serious step since the start of its offensive against Ukraine was the stationing of a small nuclear arsenal in Belarus in 2023. “Given the short range of the weapons, the nuclear signal appears to be clearly aimed at this.” “Poland is a full member of NATO and has “took the most proactive position in supporting Ukraine,” warns Sókov of a measure that will change the geostrategic map in Eastern Europe in the coming years.
Test site
The Kremlin has modernized its strategic forces in recent years. “Russia’s opponents must remember that we have weapons capable of hitting targets on their territory,” Putin emphasized to his parliamentarians last Thursday. During his speech, the President discussed the new generation of weapons that he must use to deter NATO in both a regional and large-scale conflict, and two of them have already been tested on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Kiev claims to have evidence that the Russian army used the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile against several Ukrainian cities in February. The missile, which can carry a nuclear warhead, can reach its target 1,000 kilometers away at a speed of Mach 9, about 11,100 kilometers per hour. Its test against Ukraine's air defenses – which include American Patriot batteries – would be another test of Putin's weapons, who has already used Kinzhal hypersonic missiles extensively in the war.
Powerful weapons, but not infallible. Many Kinzhals – made from Western parts – have been shot down in Ukraine, while new nuclear weapons, the Poseidon underwater drone and the Burevestnik missile, remain out of service. For its part, the new generation of Russian ICBMs is an unknown. The RS-28 Sarmat, with a range of 18,000 kilometers, is the successor to the backbone of Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, the R-36M Satan. The problem is that it was made in Ukraine and since the collapse a decade ago the Kremlin has been forced to put its Sarmat into production without a single known successful test.
Follow all international information on Facebook and Xor in our weekly newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_