Since Russia invaded Ukraine, it has exploited its nuclear deterrent, turning it into a weapon of blackmail by constantly threatening the West with a nuclear attack if it intervenes in Ukraine. These nuclear threats have been accompanied by intensive Russian propaganda campaigns in the West aimed at discouraging Westerners from taking a pro-Ukraine stance, with talking points such as the West cannot afford a war against Russia, sanctions against Russia don’t work, and NATO is provoking Russia into war.
Russia, being a totalitarian dictatorship can very easily lead its people into a war, however, in the democratic and liberal West, the decision to go to war would most probably need the clear and public support of the majority of the population. The Kremlin understands this vulnerability in the West very well, so it invests extensively in propaganda and disinformation campaigns in the West. Swaying the public opinion in the West by propaganda, disinformation, and even covert means can give Russia very tangible material results, especially if the public opinion is swayed in favour of politicians and political parties who agree to strike deals with Russia.
In fact, today, Russia is bellicose more than ever because it is very much aware that the psychology of Western populations does not necessarily welcome or tolerate the prospect of a world war. By making nuclear threats, Putin is achieving his desired chilling effect among Western populations. By scaring Western populations with nuclear war, Putin is handed major strategic victories as Western leaders succumb to this blackmail and fulfill Putin’s wishes. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is a prime example of this situation: Scholz doesn’t want to give Ukraine sophisticated weapons because that, according to him, would make him a belligerent participant in the war – it does not, but this is what Putin has made him believe.
It’s incredible how far has Putin gone with his nuclear blackmail. Effectively, Europe has lost its nuclear deterrent and Putin’s nuclear blackmail is working to the extent of providing him with effective strategic victories. This situation is unprecedented in our history. Supposedly, we had a nuclear deterrent so that nuclear weapons stay out completely from the world of politics, brinkmanship, and war. Supposedly, nuclear weapons were only there just in case of extreme emergency. Now, nuclear weapons are becoming a staple in diplomacy, politics, and war.
Let’s revise some very basics, first. Supposedly, a nuclear deterrent serves as a deterrent because both sides fear using it. Russia has gained the upper hand in this balance by posturing with a position that it doesn’t mind going into a nuclear war against the West. The West, on the other hand, is not ready to enter into a nuclear war, and effectively in this way, it has lost its nuclear deterrent.
So, now, we are in the bizarre position that the nuclear arsenal by the West is no longer serving as a deterrent. We in the West, now have nuclear weapons just so that we can retaliate with nuclear weapons, just in case Russia uses its own nuclear weapons against us. Yet, this is the worst case scenario and these were not the conditions of the nuclear deterrent in the Cold War.
Let’s go into some more basics and why not use the UK government’s, official nuclear deterrent handbook? Clearly, the textbook position of the UK government is that it does not know when, and how it would launch a nuclear attack. There is total ambiguity in how and when the UK would use nuclear weapons and that is how the deterrent used to work. This ambiguity deterred nuclear powers from using nuclear blackmail, but once this ambiguity starts to recede, both sides can only have a strong position if it’s concrete and explicit.
This is why Emmanuel Macron’s “all options on the table” has finally, brought some leverage back to Europe, especially concerning nuclear deterrence. If Russia is blackmailing us with a nuclear attack, the proper response would not be to threaten a counter-attack with nuclear weapons. Instead, to restore the previous ambiguity of the nuclear deterrent as held during the Cold War, the West should deliberately assert that in the event of such blackmail, we will ensure to be the first to initiate a nuclear strike against Russia, thereby preventing Russia from launching its attack. Macron seems to have experts around him who could convince him of this, but Macron doesn’t have the necessary political power in France to make such a bold statement, so he has to contend with “all options are on the table” instead.
Macron’s words and gestures should come with concrete action and the West has to revive its previous Cold War, covert propaganda efforts against its enemy. We are vulnerable to Russian disinformation and covert operations and the West has held back for far too long just in order to appear tame in geopolitical conflicts. These are not times to be tame. Macron’s words would have been much more effective if they were to be accompanied by immediate transfers of weaponry to Ukraine and a massive covert propaganda campaign in Russia that would explain to Russians, in very clear and explicit terms, that Russia would permanently cease to exist and that they would most probably all die if Russia launched a nuclear weapon against the West. The West doesn’t need to go into complex disinformation campaigns in Russia, and instead, it only needs to express the message of strength that Russians understand very well: don’t risk it because you have no chance of winning. Just like the Kremlin is agitating Europeans to fear arming their own states in defence against a potential Russian attack, so should the West agitate the Russians into fear of their use of nuclear weapons. Maybe, a Hollywood movie where Russia is nuked out of existence is in order? This should have been a red line to Europe a long time ago, but it’s better late than being sorry.
What’s at stake here is very serious, and it may seem, for now, very difficult to explain to an electorate that has experienced up to thirty years of economic comfort and bubbles, that the world can’t function well if a nuclear-armed dictator can dictate borders and international arrangements – and that this is the closest we have ever been to a nightmarish international dystopia.
In reality, the West has nuclear superiority over Russia. It doesn’t matter that they have thousands or whatnot of nuclear warheads – once you exceed a certain number it’s all the same, and most of the Russian warheads can’t even be used. They are short of ballistic missiles having used most of them in Ukraine and the technology along with the stock is very rusty, not to mention that their whole defence sector is vulnerable to widespread corruption.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply