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 — Following every statement by senior Russian officials warning of the danger of a third world war or affirming Moscow's readiness to resort to nuclear weapons, Washington issues assurances that it will not change its readiness to use nuclear weapons and warns that it is irresponsible for issuing these Russian warnings.

After the latest warning on Tuesday from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about the possibility of a third world war, State Department spokesman Ned Price responded: "We don't think there is a need to change our nuclear posture, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely."

Most of the experts – who polled Al Jazeera Net – agreed on the lack of credibility or seriousness of repeated Russian threats of the outbreak of World War III, or the resort to nuclear weapons, while others saw them as a serious threat that must be taken seriously.

The American elite views Russia as a poor and medium-power country, and like rentier states in its near-total dependence on natural gas, oil, and other raw materials, its economy is still as great as it was in the past.

Despite the magnitude of energy sources and military industries, Russia cannot be among the list of major economies topped by the United States with a gross national product approaching $ 23 trillion this year, while Russia's total product does not exceed $ 2 trillion, which makes it outside the list of the ten largest economies in the world.

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

Two reasons for Moscow's nuclear weapon

Steve Pyfer, an expert on European affairs and disarmament at the Brookings Institution, believes that what Sergey Lavrov raised about the nuclear danger and World War III is not very dangerous, as he said last week that Russia is committed to avoiding nuclear war.

Bayfer believes that Russian officials talk loosely and frequently about nuclear weapons for two reasons: first, that nuclear weapons are the only major factor that reminds Moscow of a major power status, and second, that they want to intimidate the West.

As a result, when senior Russian officials talk about nuclear war, U.S. and NATO officials will necessarily pay attention, given the seriousness of addressing these topics, but they will not overreact. As the French said after Putin called for Russia's nuclear weapons to be put on high alert last February, the West also has nuclear weapons, and the Russians understand that.

Just a tactical threat

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

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

"We have to take the threat of nuclear war seriously," the professor of international relations adds, explaining that taking it seriously does not mean giving in to the threats of nuclear blackmail, which Russia seems to be trying to do, but everyone knows that using nuclear weapons against the United States or NATO countries means destroying 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, that's what I think leaders in Washington and Brussels are doing.

An attempt to influence the pace of arming Ukraine

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

He points out that there is no risk of a third world war, nor resort to nuclear weapons; the United States and NATO do not provide Ukraine with anything to escalate or expand the war, because they do not want the conflict to escalate. Russia's threat of escalation and recourse to nuclear weapons in response to the current level of assistance to Ukraine has no credibility whatsoever.

Putin is not crazy

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

Spencer does not envisage the Russians resorting to nuclear weapons against the Ukrainians, they do not need to, and this will not serve any of their goals.

Highly serious threat

Alexander Downs, director of the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University, believes Russian officials are trying to deter any direct Western military intervention to save Ukraine. However, Western countries have no intention of intervening, except to send copious amounts of military equipment to Ukraine; so the repeated threat of Russian officials is very serious, but ultimately not very meaningful. If, for whatever reason, the West begins to seriously consider intervening more broadly, things will become even more terrifying.

The threat must be taken seriously

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

He points out that Washington and NATO did not heed Russia's warnings not to provide military support to Ukraine, as both 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 instead of reducing it.

Rogge concludes that Russia's threat to use nuclear weapons or break out World War III is a very dangerous signal and should be treated as seriously as it deserves.

It is clear that NATO and the United States are preparing to step up their intervention in support of Ukraine, and that Russia is now at a very disadvantage to stand up to NATO with conventional weapons, as a result of which the situation could slip from Russia's war on Ukraine to a wider global war between Russia and NATO in which Russia resorts to the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons.

Lavrov's remarks remind the United States that nuclear war is a threat it should take seriously as the war in Ukraine continues, but what is the actual point that would push Russia to use nuclear weapons either in Ukraine or elsewhere? No one knows, except Vladimir Putin, of course.