National Interest article: Russia's war in Ukraine could end in disaster

The American magazine "National Interest" published an analysis dealing with the developments of the events of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the paths that might lead, if the war took place, to the use of nuclear weapons.

The magazine article notes that the probability of the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war is low, but not zero.

Therefore, analysts who quickly rule out the possibility of a nuclear escalation, and most of those who express fear of the conflict developing into nuclear war, oversimplify the many paths of war that could lead to the intentional or unintentional use of nuclear weapons.

The authors of the article, Giles David Arsenault, associate professor of political science at the University of Colorado, and Rachel Tecott, assistant professor in the Department of Strategic and Operational Research at The US Naval War College, say that clearly defining those paths would Helping decision makers understand the best policy options that can safely advance the goals of the United States and its allies, and which policies should be approached with a high level of caution and restraint.

Option to use nuclear weapons

The article recalls that on the day Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine was launched, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that any opposition to Russian efforts would lead to consequences "you have not seen in your entire history."

Days into the war, Putin put Russia's nuclear power on high alert.

Nuclear threats from Russia have been repeated since the beginning of the conflict until now, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently warning Western leaders that the risks of nuclear war are now "significant".

The authors note that despite these public nuclear threats, American and European leaders have been skeptical about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in war. Shortly after Russia decided to put its nuclear forces on high alert, US President Joe Biden received a question whether citizens should Americans worried about a nuclear war in Europe, Biden replied simply "no."

It appears that 5 months of empty threats to use nuclear weapons have led analysts to conclude that the Russian statements "lack credibility".

Moreover, the widespread destructive effects of nuclear weapons and the fact that their use is taboo, leads many observers to assert that Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, because this will entail an exceptional response and the world will despise it because of it, according to the magazine article.

Therefore, the authors argue that observers in general, including those concerned about the possibility of Russia's use of nuclear weapons, view this possibility as unlikely.

But this view is based on the premise that the decision to use nuclear weapons will be politically calculated and purposefully directed by President Putin.

This assumption ignores one of the challenges that threatens the stability of the crisis, which is the possibility of an unintended nuclear escalation without a clear political goal.

The article stresses that concerns about the possibility of an unintended nuclear escalation deserve more attention when discussing US policy toward Ukraine, as the likelihood of an unintended escalation is higher than the likelihood of a deliberate escalation under certain circumstances, for example, for Russia to resort to mobilizing its nuclear forces to indicate its determination to resolve the battle.

Unintended Nuclear Escalation

The authors suggest that Putin would consider using nuclear weapons if he faced a devastating strategic defeat or an existential threat to his regime.

There are two types of existential threat that fall into this framework, namely that the physical security of Russia will be threatened, and this may include the threat of the territorial gains that Russia has achieved since 2014;

The second is the threat to Putin's political system.

Skeptics of the possibility of a nuclear escalation believe that nuclear weapons will not enter the battle as long as the United States and NATO avoid the red lines set by Russia, including directly attacking Russian forces and deploying NATO forces on Ukrainian soil.

The authors say that the risks associated with crossing these red lines explain the US administration's rejection of proposals to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would have forced Western forces to target the Russian military directly to enforce this policy.

However, avoiding direct engagement with Russian forces is not sufficient to ensure avoidance of a nuclear conflict, because the use of nuclear weapons does not occur by simply pressing the on and off switch, and it is important to realize that the process of preparing nuclear weapons for potential use involves the risk of their unintended use. .

Therefore, just approaching the red lines set by Russia - even if they are not breached - increases the possibility of using nuclear weapons in this war.

The authors argue that the main concern about unintended nuclear escalation during military crises lies in the state's nuclear command and control systems, as command and control systems are the operational means through which the state manages, deploys and launches nuclear weapons.

More simply, command and control measures determine how central a country's political control of nuclear weapons is.

These regulations determine how the state operates in times of peace and crises, and directly affect the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons.

If Putin feels that Russia's physical security is threatened or his political system is in danger, he will likely increase the readiness of his nuclear arsenal for use.

In practice, this means that lower-level military commanders would have the ability to use nuclear weapons, as military operators would have access to fully prepared and usable nuclear weapons, and there would likely be no technical controls to prevent their use.

dangerous mandate

The authors say that enabling military leaders to use nuclear weapons is associated with two main risks. The first is that the possibility of accidental - unintended - use of nuclear weapons due to misuse or poor design is high with military operators controlling fully ready nuclear weapons, and in the absence of obstacles that are used in peacetime Such as separating nuclear warheads from ballistic missiles and other measures that prevent them from being able to use them.

It may happen that a nuclear weapon is launched due to an accident during the war in Ukraine, in which case the external parties to the conflict may not realize that what happened was accidental, and allow them to respond with a nuclear weapon.

The second danger associated with placing nuclear weapons within the reach of military leaders is that delegating the capability to use a nuclear weapon increases the potential for unauthorized use, which occurs when those in charge of nuclear weapons use those nuclear weapons without the permission of the political leadership.

The authors explain that the unauthorized use of nuclear weapons may occur because a lower-level commander decides to circumvent the chain of command and use a nuclear weapon without prior political permission, or a field commander may choose to use a nuclear weapon to stave off defeat if his opponent can defeat him.

The article refers to the great pressure on the commanders responsible for Russian tactical nuclear weapons, who are likely to be placed on the battlefield and face great pressure to use these weapons or lose the chance of victory.

The authors conclude that policymakers should act with extreme caution as they develop their war strategy in Ukraine given the potential for an unintended nuclear escalation. The likelihood of a nuclear weapon being used may already be low, but given the high costs associated with its use, it is wise to focus on reducing the likelihood of conflict. nuclear as possible.