A serious threat or a tactical move? This is how American analysts read the Russian threat of nuclear weapons and the warning of a new world war

Washington

- After every statement issued by senior Russian officials warning of the danger of a third world war, or confirming Moscow's readiness to resort to nuclear weapons, Washington issues assurances not to change the status of its willingness to use nuclear weapons, and warns that it is not responsible for issuing these Russian warnings.

After the last warning - the day before yesterday - Tuesday - issued by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about the possibility of a third world war, US State Department spokesman Ned Price responded by saying, "We do not believe there is a need to change our nuclear posture, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely."

Most of the experts - whose views were surveyed by Al Jazeera Net - agreed on the lack of credibility or seriousness of the repeated Russian threats to break out of a third world war, or resort to nuclear weapons, while others saw it as a serious threat that must be taken seriously.

The American elite views Russia as a poor, medium-powered country, and like the rentier countries, its economy is almost entirely dependent on the abundant natural gas and oil in its lands, in addition to other raw materials;

Hence, talking about a third world war or about nuclear weapons makes it feel that it is still a major country as it was in the past.

Despite the huge energy sources and military industries, Russia cannot be found among the list of major economies, topped by the United States, with a gross national product approaching $23 trillion this year, at a time when Russia’s total output does not exceed $2 trillion, which is what It makes it out of the list of the top ten economies in the world.

Al Jazeera Net polled the views of a number of Russian and international affairs experts about the nature, seriousness and messages of these repeated Russian threats, and their answers were as follows:

Two reasons for Moscow brandishing nuclear weapons

Steve Pifer, an expert on European affairs and disarmament at the Brookings Institution, says Sergey Lavrov's rhetoric about the nuclear threat and World War III is not so serious. He said last week that Russia was committed to avoiding nuclear war.

Piver believes that Russian officials talk loosely and frequently about nuclear weapons for two reasons. The first is that nuclear weapons are the only major factor reminding Moscow of the status of a major power, and the second reason relates to their desire to intimidate the West at the same time.

As a result, when senior Russian officials talk about nuclear war, US and NATO officials will necessarily pay attention, given the dangers of broaching these topics, but not overreact.

As the French said after Putin called for Russia's nuclear weapons to be put on high alert last February, the West has nuclear weapons, too, and the Russians understand that.

Just a tactical threat

For a professor of international relations at West Point Military Academy, Robert Pearson, talk of the use of nuclear weapons and the outbreak of World War III is likely to be merely a tactical threat, and Moscow is clearly frustrated by its failure to achieve its initial war aims in Ukraine, as well as the strong support that Western countries provided Ukraine in the form of increased supplies of heavy weapons.

Pearson believes that Lavrov's World War III warnings are an attempt to intimidate Ukraine's supporters into providing additional weapons. In other words, it is a coercive threat, but not one that Russia can realistically support, and Russia is unlikely to seriously consider escalating the war beyond Ukraine's borders at this time.

The professor of international relations adds that "we have to take the threat of nuclear war seriously," explaining that taking it seriously does not mean giving in to the threats of nuclear blackmail, which is what Russia seems to be trying to do, but everyone knows that the use of nuclear weapons against the United States or NATO countries mean the destruction of Russia itself;

So taking the threat seriously in this case means calmly assessing it as a low-probability threat and not overreacting out of fear, which is what I think leaders in Washington and Brussels are doing.

An attempt to influence the pace of armaments of Ukraine

For his part, Dartmouth University professor and expert on US foreign policy Professor William Wolfforth believes that the mentioned Russian statements come as part of an attempt to influence the pace of NATO countries arming Ukraine, as the United States and its partners are working to significantly increase military supplies, and Lavrov seems to stress that the risks of escalation The potential increases with the growth of the quantity of these weapons and the inclusion of lethal and offensive weapons.

He points out that there is no danger of a third world war, and no resort to nuclear weapons;

The United States and NATO do not provide Ukraine with an incentive to escalate or expand the war, because they do not want the conflict to escalate.

And the Russian threat to escalate and resort to nuclear weapons in response to the current level of assistance to Ukraine is absolutely not credible.

Putin is not crazy

As for the former US Army officer and expert in the theories of modern wars, John Spencer, he confirms that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not crazy, but rather moves with accurate calculations, and has threatened to resort to nuclear weapons to draw a red line for NATO and Washington that they should not intervene directly in the war, and his message clearly reached Washington .

Spencer does not imagine that the Russians will resort to using nuclear weapons against the Ukrainians, they do not need to, and it will not serve any of their goals.

A very serious threat

On the other hand, Alexander Downes, director of the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University, believes that Russian officials are trying to deter any direct Western military intervention to save Ukraine.

However, Western countries have no intention of interfering, except to send copious amounts of military equipment to Ukraine;

So, the repeated threat by Russian officials is very serious, but ultimately not very meaningful.

And if, for whatever reason, the West begins to seriously consider intervening on a larger scale, things will become even more terrifying.

The threat must be taken seriously

For his part, Jeffrey Rogg, assistant professor in the Department of Intelligence and Security Studies at the Citadel Military Academy, reminds that the war in Ukraine is not going well for Russia, and it has suffered great losses in its soldiers and equipment that will be very difficult to replace quickly, and it has faced fierce resistance. From the Ukrainians, it was clearly the intelligence and military support provided by NATO, especially the United States, that facilitated the Ukrainians to inflict such heavy losses on the Russians.

He notes that Washington and NATO have not heeded Russia's warnings not to provide military support to Ukraine, as the two sides continue to provide it with weapons and intelligence;

Rather, contrary to the wishes of the Russians, Washington increased its support for Ukraine, which means that the United States decided to continue to raise the pace of escalation rather than reduce it.

Rogge concludes that Russia's threat to use nuclear weapons or a third world war is a very dangerous signal, and should be taken with the seriousness it deserves.

It is clear - adds Rogge - that NATO and the United States are preparing to increase their intervention in support of Ukraine, and that Russia is now in a very unfavorable position to stand up to NATO with conventional weapons, and as a result the situation could slip from the war that Russia is waging on Ukraine into a wider global war Between Russia and NATO, Russia resorts to the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons.

He asserts that Lavrov's statements remind the United States that nuclear war is a threat that it should take seriously as the war continues in Ukraine, but what is the actual point that would prompt Russia to use nuclear weapons, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere?

Nobody knows, except for Vladimir Putin of course.