We are in the midst of a war that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, continuing on many different fronts, witnessing new dimensions, and perhaps seeing many firsts in the coming periods. The question, “What will the future of this war be?” has circled in our minds repeatedly, but the answer is so complex that, unfortunately, none of us have reached a definitive conclusion.
On the other hand, when we follow the paths that might lead us to a conclusion or the answer to the conclusion, I think we can reach some conclusions based on probabilities, even if we cannot state the outcome clearly. This way of thinking improves our ability to cope with uncertainties in decision-making processes and to solve complex problems. For example, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous saying, “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything,” reflects this understanding.1 Eisenhower emphasizes in military strategies and politics that there is no certain way to reach an outcome, but planning as a continuous process means preparing for future possibilities. Similarly, taking an example from the academic and business community, Peter Drucker’s statement, “The best roadmap is asking the right questions,” highlights the importance of critical thinking in dealing with encountered uncertainties. These approaches show that mapping out possibilities plays an important role in strategic planning and decision-making processes for an uncertain future.
As we contemplate the complex future of Russia’s military engagements, it becomes imperative to scrutinize the cornerstone of its strategy: Putin’s nuclear posturing. This rhetoric, far from being novel, marks a continuation of a historical pattern that merits a closer examination. In this context, this paper seeks to explore the intricate dynamics of Putin’s nuclear strategy within the broader chessboard of global power politics. By delving into the historical precedents, current posturing, and potential future scenarios of nuclear diplomacy, we aim to provide a nuanced understanding of how nuclear threats, if wielded by state actors like Russia, can reshape international relations, deterrence strategies, and the global quest for stability. Against the backdrop of escalating tensions and unpredictable political landscapes, our analysis extends beyond mere speculation, offering a structured exploration of possible outcomes rooted in the strategic doctrines that have governed international conflict and cooperation in the nuclear age. This approach not only sheds light on Putin’s current gambit but also contributes to the ongoing debate about the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring global peace or precipitating instability.
Putin’s Nuclear Posturing
Let’s start our analysis with Putin’s nuclear war threat, as this rhetoric was not Putin’s first in this regard. Because we witnessed a series of escalating threats in 2022. Immediately after the invasion, on February 28, 2022, Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear forces to enter “special combat duty mode,” signaling a high state of alert.2 Then, in April 2022, amid escalating tensions with warnings about Sweden and Finland considering NATO memberships, Putin’s reaction was to signal strengthening his nuclear weapons.3 Immediately afterward, in May 2022, a simulated nuclear attack on the UK and Ireland was shown on Russian state television.4 As the final step of this escalation process, Putin’s announcement of a partial military mobilization in Russia on September 21, 2022, and his statement that “Russia would use all available means to protect itself” were generally interpreted as a nuclear threat.5
Understanding the gravity of Putin’s nuclear threats necessitates a broader exploration of their implications. This brings us to the concepts of escalation and the security dilemma, key frameworks that illuminate the precarious nature of current international relations.
As we analyze Putin’s nuclear rhetoric, it is instructive to consider the historical precedents of nuclear posturing in the annals of global politics. The Cold War era, marked by the tense standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, provides a rich backdrop for understanding the strategic use of nuclear threats. During this period, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) emerged as a deterrence strategy6, predicated on the understanding that any use of nuclear weapons by one superpower would result in the annihilation of both. This framework of deterrence through the balance of terror has shaped the policies of nuclear-armed states for decades.
However, Putin’s approach to nuclear posturing, while drawing from this historical playbook of deterrence, introduces nuanced differences that reflect the complexities of the 21st-century geopolitical landscape. Unlike the relatively binary opposition of the Cold War, today’s global environment is multipolar, with a multitude of actors and interests intersecting in ways that can amplify the risks associated with nuclear threats. Furthermore, the integration of cyber warfare and hybrid tactics into the strategic calculus adds layers of complexity to the traditional models of escalation and security dilemmas. In this context, Putin’s signaling serves not only as a reminder of Russia’s nuclear capabilities but also as a strategic tool designed to exploit the uncertainties inherent in today’s international relations, potentially recalibrating the security dilemma in the digital age.
Escalation and the Security Dilemma Conceptually, “escalation” refers to the process of increasing the intensity of conflicts or disagreements between two or more parties, especially in war environments and politics. The concept of the “security dilemma” in political science involves a situation where measures taken by a state to enhance its own security cause other states to respond with similar measures, leading to decreased security for the initiating state. This cycle can lead to increased armament and potentially conflict, as states cannot be sure if others’ military enhancements will be used aggressively in the future. This concept, first described by Herbert Butterfield and coined by John Herz, illustrates the tragic nature of international relations where actions intended to ensure peace could lead to war.7 In this conceptual perspective, the tension escalation steps that started with Sweden and Finland’s decisions to join NATO in 2022 and continued reciprocally have continued to this day. It cannot be explained by mere coincidence that we have come to the point today where the flags of these two countries are officially hoisted at NATO headquarters. However, on the other hand, the fact that this statement was made just before the elections could also be interpreted as another agenda of Putin’s as “preparation for the elections.” 8
The dynamics of escalation and the security dilemma undeniably heighten tensions, yet the specter of nuclear warfare introduces a deterrent that shapes strategic calculations. This delicate balance of power underpins the intricate dance of diplomacy and deterrence in the nuclear age.
The Deterrent of Nuclear Warfare and Potential for Nuclear Escalation
Is this situation just a bluff by Putin, or, as he himself said in April 2022, a method he could use with all his means to protect himself?
The decision to use nuclear weapons is not taken lightly by any side. The knowledge that initiating a nuclear war could “potentially end the world” creates a significant deterrent against such action. This deterrent, often referred to as “mutual assured destruction,” underpins much of the strategic stability between nuclear-armed states. It encourages countries to seek other means of conflict resolution, understanding the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war. Thus, it’s highly unlikely that any side would easily or hastily take on the responsibility of initiating a nuclear conflict.
But what if this deterrence is not enough, and one of the sides uses a tactical nuclear weapon to impact a limited area?
In a scenario where one side uses a tactical or “light” or “tactical” nuclear missile in a local attack, it would significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict and international relations. Such an act breaks the nuclear taboo that has prevented the use of nuclear weapons in conflict since World War II. It could lead to severe escalation, international condemnation, and potentially trigger a broader conflict. The use of a nuclear weapon, even on a smaller scale, is a grave step that could provoke unpredictable responses, potentially escalating to a larger, more devastating conflict.
While the doctrine of mutual assured destruction may hold the prospect of nuclear conflict at bay, the political landscape, particularly the impending elections, adds layers of complexity to this calculus. Let’s delve into various scenarios that could unfold, each with its own set of consequences for global stability.
As we dissect the layers of nuclear deterrence and the chilling effect it has on the initiation of nuclear conflict, it becomes apparent that Putin’s deployment of nuclear rhetoric transcends mere national security strategy, seeping into the domain of domestic political maneuvering. This interweaving of nuclear diplomacy with internal politics not only underscores the complexity of Putin’s gambit but also sets a precarious global precedent. The use of nuclear threats to bolster domestic political standing, particularly in the lead-up to elections, illuminates a risky confluence of international security strategy and internal political calculus. This approach challenges the traditional paradigms of nuclear deterrence, which have historically centered on state-to-state relations, by introducing an element where domestic political objectives can significantly influence, and potentially destabilize, international nuclear diplomacy. The implications of this strategy extend far beyond Russia’s borders, prompting a reevaluation of how nuclear posturing is interpreted and countered on the global stage. It underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the ways in which domestic political ambitions can shape, and be shaped by, the strategies employed in international security discourse. As we pivot to consider the election implications and theoretical scenarios ahead, it is crucial to bear in mind the symbiotic relationship between Putin’s internal political narrative and his external nuclear posturing. This duality not only complicates the task of international diplomacy but also serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of global security and domestic political dynamics in the nuclear age.
Election Implications and Theoretical Scenarios
If we read this scenario together with the upcoming election periods;
- In a pessimistic scenario, the internal political pressure and weakening power of the leaders might lead to desperate measures to consolidate power, including escalating military actions or leveraging nuclear threats to rally nationalistic support.
- Optimistically, the internal political challenges could prompt a reconsideration of aggressive strategies, leading to de-escalation in favor of diplomatic solutions. The need to address domestic concerns might shift focus away from military engagements, encouraging negotiations and potentially opening pathways to peace.
While it is, of course, everyone’s expectation and wish that action will be taken under the optimistic scenario, analysts generally prefer to take a pessimistic approach and talk about what might happen if the situation turns for the worse. However, let us reassess the situation from a military and political point of view in four different scenarios, using a method developed in NATO to speed up the decision-making process of commanders and to enable them to see the whole range of possibilities within a framework and to make healthy decisions by ranking the possible situations.
- Best-case scenario: Diplomatic efforts lead to a ceasefire, with the attacking country halting its military actions, including nuclear threats, influenced by international negotiations and pressure. Peace talks commence to address the underlying causes of the conflict, with political leaders aiming for a peaceful resolution that addresses initial grievances. International organizations and alliances are instrumental in fostering dialogue and mending relations.
- Most probable scenario: Tensions persist with intermittent conventional military engagements, while international mediation focuses on containment and preventing escalation to nuclear conflict, aiming for a diplomatic solution. A political stalemate continues despite international efforts, employing economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to foster negotiations and avert further escalation.
- Worst-case scenario: The conflict escalates to using tactical nuclear weapons, causing international outrage, a severe humanitarian crisis, and potential broader military involvement from global coalitions to restore stability and deter further nuclear incidents. This leads to escalated political tensions, diplomatic breakdowns, and the conflict’s possible expansion, impacting worldwide politics and economies.
- Hybrid scenario: There’s a strategic blend of cyber warfare, propaganda, and limited conventional conflicts, aimed at weakening the opponent’s resolve and capabilities, while parallel diplomatic endeavors seek to de-escalate the situation. This approach combines diplomatic negotiation with strategic positioning, utilizing political, economic, and informational tools to gain an advantage in talks and prevent further military confrontations.
We developed these scenarios together, taking into account the situation Putin finds himself in and his nuclear threatening mindset as he moves towards the election. What if, after all, he cannot win an election and refuses to relinquish power?
In such a scenario, it could lead to significant internal and international crises. Efforts to maintain power at any cost could involve the suppression of dissent, manipulation of legal systems, or even leveraging military forces to intimidate or control. This could destabilize the country internally and escalate tensions externally, as international bodies and other nations might respond with sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or support for democratic processes. The situation could become highly volatile, affecting global security and economic stability.
In a “highly theoretical scenario” (!) where Putin ties his political survival to national security, claiming existential threats justify extreme measures, the decision to use nuclear weapons would still be met with significant internal and international resistance. Such an action would be catastrophic, likely leading to global condemnation, possible retaliatory strikes, and irreversible damage to human life and the environment.
But on the other hand, it is important to remember that we are dealing with a Putin who was able to implement a devious, sophisticated and risky strategy through the Wagner Group in order to maintain his political and military power inside the country and to expose those who might pose a threat to him and his regime. Such an operation would have required complex planning and carried significant risks, including the possibility of an unwanted escalation or international backlash. But it happened and nothing has changed his mind about using this scenario.
The theoretical scenarios outlined, ranging from optimistic to pessimistic, underscore the fluidity of international politics. As we consider these possibilities, it is crucial to examine the current international reactions to Putin’s gambit and how these may shape the future contours of global diplomacy.
International Reactions and Future Projections
Global reactions to Putin’s nuclear posturing have been mixed, with some countries expressing concern over the escalation of tensions and others advocating for renewed diplomatic efforts to address the underlying issues. International bodies and alliances have underscored the importance of maintaining strategic stability and avoiding actions that could lead to miscalculations. Moving forward, experts project an increased focus on diplomatic channels to manage the situation, alongside efforts to strengthen international norms against the use of nuclear weapons. The future may see a delicate balance between deterrence, diplomacy, and dialogue as the world navigates this precarious phase of international relations.
The international community’s response to Russia’s nuclear strategy highlights a collective effort to navigate the treacherous waters of global politics. As we reflect on these dynamics, it becomes clear that the path to maintaining global stability is fraught with challenges, demanding a nuanced approach to diplomacy and deterrence.
In light of the diverse international reactions to Putin’s nuclear posturing, it becomes evident that the path towards mitigating the risks associated with such brinkmanship lies in the strength of global cooperation and dialogue. The concerns raised by nations around the world underscore the precariousness of relying solely on deterrence to maintain peace. Instead, these reactions highlight a crucial opportunity for the international community to reaffirm and strengthen its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation treaties and initiatives. By prioritizing diplomatic engagement and collective security measures, states can counterbalance the tendencies towards unilateral military strategies that threaten global stability. This renewed focus on collaborative efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation not only addresses the immediate challenges posed by current geopolitical tensions but also contributes to a longer-term vision for a world where the specter of nuclear conflict is diminished.
As we move towards the conclusion of this analysis, it is imperative to consider how the lessons drawn from examining Putin’s nuclear rhetoric, and the world’s response to it, can inform strategies for promoting a more stable and secure international order. The potential for constructive international cooperation in the face of nuclear threats represents a beacon of hope in navigating the complexities of modern geopolitics. Emphasizing dialogue, transparency, and shared commitments to non-proliferation can pave the way for de-escalating current tensions and laying the groundwork for enduring peace.
Conclusion: Navigating a Precarious Balance
From this perspective and the realities presented throughout this paper, it’s evident that a leader possessing Putin’s strength and mindset, particularly when facing the uncertainty of reelection and having previously resorted to nuclear threats, might contemplate extreme measures. These could range from intensifying Russia’s military posture to more aggressively wielding the threat of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool in international relations, or even consolidating power domestically. Yet, the actual employment of nuclear weapons would breach a critical threshold, potentially triggering grave global repercussions and catastrophic consequences, making such a decision heavily guarded and subject to extensive decision-making processes beyond the purview of any single individual.
Reflecting on the worst-case scenarios, as analysts are often wont to do, it becomes apparent that the use of nuclear threats by Putin to maintain power, unify the country against perceived external threats, and intensify nationalist sentiments while suppressing domestic dissent could indeed pose a dire risk. Nonetheless, it is my hope—and, indeed, the more desirable outcome—that the specter of nuclear weapon use remains just that: a threat hindered by its international ramifications and the principle of mutual destruction.
This paper has navigated the complex dynamics of Putin’s nuclear strategy against the backdrop of global geopolitics, revealing the limitations of traditional nuclear deterrence and conflict resolution frameworks in addressing the nuanced threats of today’s world. Yet, within these challenges lies an unparalleled opportunity for the global community to chart a new course in nuclear diplomacy, one rooted in the principles of transparency, mutual respect, and an invigorated commitment to collective security. By pursuing innovative approaches that transcend the binary oppositions of the Cold War, we can more effectively confront the intricate complexities of contemporary international relations.
As this critical juncture demands decisive action, the call extends to individual nations and international bodies alike to foster a collaborative environment conducive to the development of new norms and agreements. These efforts should reflect the multipolar reality of modern geopolitics and recognize the interconnected destinies of all nations in this nuclear age. Beyond reaffirming existing non-proliferation treaties, there is a pressing need for the courage to envisage and actualize new frameworks for global stability, emphasizing diplomatic engagement, transparency in nuclear arsenals and doctrines, and the promotion of nuclear risk reduction centers. This analysis, therefore, serves not only as a contemplation of the precarious balance of power in today’s geopolitical landscape but also as an earnest appeal to all stakeholders in the international arena. The present moment calls for a bold reenvisioning of nuclear diplomacy, championing a world where peace and security are the collective legacy of global cooperation and mutual understanding. Moving forward, let us embrace this challenge with the conviction that through united action and creative thought, a safer and more secure world lies not just within the realm of possibility but is firmly within our grasp.
- “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable,”, Dwight D. Eisenhower ↩︎
- The Wall Street Journal. (2022, February 26). Putin puts nuclear forces in a special mode of combat duty. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-02-26/card/putin-puts-nuclear-forces-in-a-special-mode-of-combat-duty–WKMRkTauWFNnWy26hZar ↩︎
- Reuters. (2022, April 14). Russia warns of Baltic nuclear deployment if NATO admits Sweden, Finland. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-baltic-nuclear-deployment-if-nato-admits-sweden-finland-2022-04-14/ ↩︎
- The Guardian. (2022, May 3). Ireland condemns Russian TV for nuclear attack simulation. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/ireland-condemns-russian-tv-for-nuclear-attack-simulation ↩︎
- The Guardian. (2022, September 21). Putin announces partial mobilisation in Russia in escalation of Ukraine war. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/21/putin-announces-partial-mobilisation-in-russia-in-escalation-of-ukraine-war ↩︎
- Encyclopædia Britannica. (n.d.). Mutual assured destruction. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction ↩︎
- Wivel, A. (n.d.). Security dilemma. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/security-dilemma ↩︎
- DefenseDomain. (n.d.). Putin: Russia is ready for nuclear war. Retrieved from https://defensedomain.com/putin-russia-is-ready-for-nuclear-war/ ↩︎