British researcher: Any threat to Crimea could lead to an escalation in which Moscow could use nuclear weapons

Any threat to Crimea from Ukraine or its allies portends a dangerous escalation to the point where Moscow could use a nuclear weapon, says Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of the British Royal United Services Institute's think tank.

for the British Financial Times

, Chalmers quoted Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines as saying last week that she assessed the probability of a nuclear conflict due to the conflict in Ukraine as low, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin may authorize the use of weapons.

nuclear power only if he feels there is an existential threat to his country.

But what could be considered an "existential threat"?

The writer excluded a number of cases that are expected to provoke a nuclear conflict, such as a direct war between Moscow and Washington, or the advance of Ukrainian forces and their entry into Russian territory, or the restoration of Donbass and Lugansk, saying if there is a risk of escalation, it is likely to come from the Crimea.

The writer ruled out that Russia would consider Ukraine's restoration of its control over Donbass and Luhansk an existential threat, because Moscow had recognized them until last February as two republics belonging - albeit nominally - to Ukraine.

The different situation of Crimea

Crimea is in a different situation. Until its transition to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, Crimea had been part of the Russian Empire for nearly two centuries, so the prospect of losing the peninsula would be seen as a fundamental challenge to Russia's territorial integrity.

The writer expected that the Ukrainian forces - in the absence of a ceasefire - would be keen to prevent the Crimea from becoming a haven through which the Kremlin could resupply its forces in the rest of Ukraine, by targeting new militarily tempting points inside the peninsula such as the Kerch bridge or the base Russian Navy in Sevastopol.

If Moscow views these potential attacks as a prelude to a large-scale invasion of Crimea, it may increase the risk of nuclear escalation.

Chalmers described this scenario as one of the most worrying.

Likewise, the writer predicted that the prospect of a nuclear crisis would make it easier for leaders on both sides in the conflict to make difficult concessions, such as ending the war and lifting the blockade of the Black Sea, and Ukraine leaving Crimea to the Russians for the time being, and in the meantime, Putin could ease his humiliation. Because of the failure of his invasion of Ukraine by saying that Russia's strategic arsenal succeeded in deterring NATO, "this may be enough for both sides to avoid the worst outcomes of all."