Since it was announced a few days ago that France will not respond with its nuclear weapons if the Russians use their atomic weapons on Ukrainian soil;

French President Emmanuel Macron is accused of lacking caution in a strategic issue. Did his desire to reassure the French go to reassuring Russian President Vladimir Putin?

What we know, what we do not know, and what we are not supposed to say about the nuclear threat in the context of the war in Ukraine must be updated.

This is what the French "Mediapart" website sees, which highlighted that Macron clearly said that "our nuclear strategy is based on the defense of the basic interests of the nation, it is very clearly defined, and there is absolutely no response in the event of a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in Region";

Which means that France will not move a finger as expected, but many personalities expressed their regret for this saying, noting that the French president should not have answered with such accuracy, because Putin would interpret it with "Western weakness", as Bruno Tertree, deputy director of the Foundation sees. Strategic Research in France.

And the site warned - in an article by journalist Justin Braban - that the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, corrected the matter the next day and said that a nuclear attack by Russia on Ukraine would lead to a military response from the West, certainly not nuclear, but "so powerful that it would annihilate the Russian army." ".

At the same time, the journalist asked: Is it permissible to blame a head of state for being very clear on nuclear issues?

Because the policy of deterrence is an ambiguous issue, around which the states that possess these weapons raise a lot of doubt regarding the main principles they have declared and the concrete ways of implementing them.


Will Putin use nuclear weapons?

This "question" - as the writer sees - is what worries world leaders and many citizens, especially after Putin confirmed on September 21 that he would use "all means available to him to defend Russia and its people" in the event of a threat to its territorial integrity. US President Joe Biden warned of the possibility of "Armageddon" or the end of the universe war.

However, what is certain since the beginning of the war in Ukraine is that the Russian president hinted that he could do this, when he put the nuclear deterrent force on alert, noting that the policy of the United States and its allies represents a “threat to the existence and sovereignty of the Russian state,” after he had signed a decree in June 2020 specifies that Moscow has authorized the use of nuclear weapons in the event of "an attack on the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."

For those who do not believe in this possibility, the Kremlin’s verbal escalation enters into the normal “game” of deterrence, because the use of nuclear weapons means that the deterrence strategy that frames it has failed. As for the experts, academics, soldiers and specialists who participated in nuclear disarmament programs, they are divided on this The issue, however, is that they believe that Putin's recent military failures have his back to the wall, so the use of nuclear weapons could be his last resort.

However, former US Defense Secretary William Perry believes that “Putin is rational, not crazy, and he can use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to achieve victory, and thus ensure the survival of his regime,” especially since Moscow has a “comparative advantage” is the so-called tactical nuclear weapons, and pointed out that "The chances of an all-out nuclear war were high during the Cuban missile crisis, but the chances of using nuclear weapons are higher today."


What would a Russian nuclear strike look like?

The writer asked: Will the world see the nuclear strike - if Russia decides to carry it out - before it occurs?

To respond that it is difficult to hide the movement of nuclear missiles from the vigilance of the American intelligence services that monitor the locations of these missiles through satellite images, and perhaps also from human sources, but that the Russians can voluntarily make this process visible in order to increase pressure on their opponents.

"I think if the Russians were preparing to do that, they would try to report it," says Franklin Miller, a former nuclear policy official at the United States National Security Council, according to what was reported by the American "Politico" website. From central storage sites to firing units. They will give us more time to think about it and worry.” But the more annoying question is: Are these nuclear missiles seen coming out of their shelter to join the firing facility came for a real hit or a hoax?

As for how the Russian nuclear strike might look, this is also an area of ​​difference - as the writer says - as the nuclear weapon can be launched in an uninhabited area, but it will not be visible;

Thus, it will not have the exact desired effect.

If you want to be a threat, you have to look impressive on TV, says Edward Guest, a Russia researcher at the RAND Corporation, which is close to the US military. .

According to estimates by part of the American press, if such an attack occurred, it could aim to destroy an entire Ukrainian city, such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, but William Perry chose the hypothesis that the attack would be on a Ukrainian military facility to avoid civilian casualties.


How will NATO respond?

After the amazement and awe are over, the rest of the world will have to make difficult choices, because the moment is unprecedented in human history, because when the United States dropped its bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, it was the only power that possesses nuclear weapons, but today it is owned by 9 countries;

3 of them are allies of Ukraine (US, UK and France).

Macron's response was clear on behalf of France. It will not respond to a strike on Ukraine, but what if the territory of a NATO member country is targeted in order to destroy Western military aid delivery routes?

In this case, the organization would be required to respond under Article 5 of the Constituent Treaty on "Collective Defense".

As for the United States, it formed a team to think about response scenarios, although the American “Nuclear Posture Review” states that the United States “will strive to end any conflict with the lowest possible level of damage,” and the team concluded - after many hours of discussion - that it The United States should not use nuclear weapons, at least initially.

In fact, none of the senior civil servants, senior officers, politicians, independent researchers or academics who spoke on this issue wants countries to respond with a nuclear attack, and they all agree never to press the fateful button.

No one wants to risk World War III and "mutually assured destruction" if there is an escalation between the nuclear powers, but almost every side has an interest in leaving suspicion hanging, in the hope that it will prevent Moscow from taking action, as the principle requires deterrence.

Perhaps this is the meaning of Biden’s threat when he promised Russia “serious consequences” in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, and perhaps it is the meaning of the exit of the head of European diplomacy, who promises an outright “annihilation” of the Russian army if this happens, and it may also be the reason for the leakage of the results of his simulation exercises The US military is under the jurisdiction of Barack Obama, in order to send a signal saying that part of the US state will not retreat from a nuclear strike.