Biden believes threat of nuclear strike by Russia is real. What world, Ukraine should do

The day before, US President Joe Baden said that he believed Putin's "nuclear" threats were not just a bluff and an attempt to intimidate, but a real threat.

"When I was out here about two years ago saying I worried about the Colorado river drying up, everybody looked at me like I was crazy. They looked at me like when I said I worry about Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. It's real," Biden said on June 19 at a meeting with his campaign donors in California.

How seriously should we take the American president's statement?

It should be reminded that Biden was one of the first to warn of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. He even gave an approximate date: the end of February 2022. He was also right about the Colorado River - that river has indeed dried up. So, even though Uncle Joe did not specify on the basis of which data he concluded that there was a threat of tactical nuclear weapons and where Russia could use them, we should at least listen to his words.

After all, let's not forget that what the US president said was preceded by statements from Russia about the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus. In addition, Putin suggested the possibility of changing the nuclear doctrine, in particular, adding the possibility of a preemptive strike. In addition, Kremlin propagandists again began to accuse Kyiv of preparing to build a "dirty nuclear bomb." On June 19, Russia's foreign intelligence said it had allegedly received information about the decision of Ukraine's State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate to send a batch of irradiated fuel from Rivne to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, where such a bomb would be "created."

Finally, the act of terrorism at the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant also confirms that the Russians are capable of anything.

What should Ukraine make of Biden's statement?

"Earlier, Biden said that Putin's 'nuclear' threats were a bluff. Now he says that such a scenario is possible. What caused this change? I think it's the Russians' blowing up of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant. In terms of its environmental consequences, this catastrophe is comparable to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The explosion has once again shown, but at a slightly different level, the inadequacy of Putin and his inner circle," political scientist Ihor Reiterovych commented to Ukrinform.

Putin's goal was appropriate. He tried to show the world with this incident that he was ready to take such steps, hoping that the world would draw "conclusions."

"Putin believed that there would be calls for an urgent end to the war, sitting down at the negotiating table, concessions to Russia, and so on. But the world has done nothing of the sort... On the contrary, we have seen the exact opposite reaction, i.e., even more support for Ukraine. Not immediately, of course, but the international community began to condemn this crime committed by Russia," the expert says.

When the scenario with the hydroelectric power plant explosion did not work, Moscow decided to move to the next level.

"They started threatening with nuclear weapons again. However, I think this is more about a crime at the ZNPP than a missile launch with tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). Judging by the latest reports, the situation at the plant is very difficult and dangerous. I do not rule out that the occupiers may make some kind of provocation there. At the same time, they will not need to detonate the charge, because, according to our and Western military experts, the use of TNWs will not bring Russia a key advantage on the battlefield," the political scientist says.

From a military point of view, the use of tactical nuclear weapons makes no sense, because it will not reduce the ability of the Armed Forces and Ukraine and Ukrainian citizens to resist Russian aggression. Last year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, clearly stated that even if the enemy uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine, Ukrainians will continue to fight until victory. And at this year's Munich conference, the results of a poll were presented, where 89% of citizens said they would confront Russia despite the TNW strike.

"Therefore, I believe that Biden's statement is primarily related to the potential threat to the NPP," says the political scientist. - "He hinted to Russia that the United States and its allies understand that you Russians are crazy and that you can actually do this. But we see everything and will react accordingly," Mr. Reiterovych added.

How serious is the threat of TNW use?

Mykhailo Honchar, an expert on security relations and president of the Center for Global Studies "Strategy XXI", first of all, drew attention to the fact that Biden did not use the phrase "the United States sees preparations" in his statement.

"When this issue was previously commented on by American officials, such as Pentagon Chief Lloyd Austin or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, it was constantly emphasized that there were no signs that Russia was engaged in technical preparations for the use of TNWs. They say that the US and allied intelligence services monitor Russia's activities 24/7, and therefore the "nuclear" threats that are periodically heard from the Kremlin towers are more about bluffing. Has anything changed now? Well, Biden didn't say anything about any preparations being noticed. Then what is it all about? On June 5, Profile magazine published an article (which was later also reprinted by the Russia in Global Politics website, which is considered respectable in the swamps - Ed.) titled "A Difficult but Necessary Decision," which says that Russia will eventually have to make a decision on the use of TNWs and that the world will have to go through it," says Mr. Honchar.

The author of this article is Sergei Karaganov, honorary chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council and one of the founders of the Valdai Club, which is a favorite of Putin's. He also holds the position of scientific advisor to the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics at the Higher School of Economics.

"Karganov is from the caste of those close to the Kremlin, a well-known ideologue of Putinism. His article is full of military and nuclear pathos. He believes that Russia needs to act proactively, intimidate the West, and give it an ultimatum. And if this does not work, if the ultimatum is not fulfilled, it should strike a group of targets in a number of European countries to bring the West to its senses. In other words, it is not only about a nuclear strike on Ukraine, but, in particular, the Polish city of Poznan is also mentioned. Karaganov assures us that the US and NATO will surrender, because America does not want to risk Washington for the sake of a conditional Poznan," the expert briefly recounts the content of this crazy text.

Mr. Honchar believes that Karaganov's words could have been taken into account on the banks of the Potomac, as his position is exactly the message that Russia wants to send to the West.

Therefore, according to experts, the risk is constantly growing.

"The Ukrainian authorities should not be afraid to communicate on this issue. People should be as prepared as possible. Even if the probability of using TNWs is still low, it is better to be "overdone" than "underdone", as they say. Putin, for example, can easily give the appropriate order if the situation at the front changes to a catastrophic one for him. Whether it will be executed is another question. In any case, until June 6, many people considered it unlikely that the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant would be blown up, although the risks were constantly discussed," emphasizes Ihor Reiterovych.

Mykhailo Honchar agrees with him and says that since Russia failed in its quick blitzkrieg, "Kyiv in three days," Ukraine has been constantly under a nuclear threat.

"The aggressor's nuclear rhetoric began to advance actively around the end of spring 2022. What has changed in more than a year? The situation now is not fundamentally different. However, this does not mean that we should take this issue lightly," the expert emphasizes. - "If there is a gun hanging on the wall at the beginning of a play, it must go off at the end. So, if the Kremlin periodically threatens to use TNWs, then obviously the temptation to do so is enormous. And as Russia suffers a military defeat on the battlefield, as it fails to implement its plans, which, by the way, have been repeatedly adjusted, the risk increases. So, this is the case when it is better to overestimate the enemy than to underestimate it."

Mr. Honchar also believes that Moscow should be expected to launch a man-made accident at the ZNPP rather than a nuclear missile strike.

"I think that this is the occupiers' working option. They will try to blame everything on Ukraine again. The effect of the accident at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant may be even more catastrophic than the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. This is on the one hand, and on the other hand, projections of a nuclear threat are being created not only for us, but also for neighboring countries - the Baltic States and Poland," the expert emphasized.

What should be the reaction of the United States and its allies?

According to Ihor Reiterovych, not only Putin, but also Biden, to a certain extent, has raised the stakes. But in the sense that Ukraine's partners should take the threat of the use of TNWs seriously.

"And that this seriousness should include specific steps in response, which Russia will definitely not like," says Ihor Reiterovych.

Although so far no action has been taken. And this is really the key.

"I think something will be announced in the near future. I really hope that it will not be something in the spirit of another "deep concern" because it will only stimulate the aggressor. And not just any announcement, but a specific list of what awaits the Russian Federation if it dares to either use tactical nuclear weapons or provoke a critical situation at the ZNPP. It is important that both of these things are equivalent," he emphasized.

Mr. Reiterovych said that the relevant statement should come from both individual representatives of the nuclear powers, in particular China, and NATO member states as a whole: "This statement can be conveyed to Russia either officially or through unofficial channels, but with very clear wording."

In addition, partners should strengthen Ukraine with additional nomenclature in military assistance packages. What could we be talking about? Well, for example, the same ATACMS missiles.

"I am sure that the issue of ATACMS is not off the agenda, it is constantly raised by the Ukrainian side at every meeting. The explosion of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant and Russia's aggressive "nuclear rhetoric" give Ukraine a reason to once again voice its requests for weapons that will help it win the war faster. The upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius may become a place for such discussions," the political scientist believes.

By the way, the day before, the US House of Representatives Committee supported a resolution to provide Ukraine with ATACMS missiles.

"Biden sent a lot of signals with his statement. The main thing is that these signals are correctly perceived, because they are reflected in practical actions," Ihor Reiterovych emphasized.

The President of the Center for Global Studies "Strategy XXI" recalled the sluggish and untimely reaction of the world, especially the Western nuclear powers (the United States, the United Kingdom and France) to the Russian Federation's blowing up of the Kakhovka Dam. He also added that what Biden said was not a reaction, but a statement.

"This is not enough, given that he is the head of the most powerful state in the world, which others look up to and follow. Therefore, Biden should not only state that the threat exists, but also clearly warn those from whom this threat comes," says Mykhailo Honchar.

It is highly desirable that the United Kingdom and France issue a warning along with the United States, so that it comes from the three nuclear powers of the West.

"After all, these countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, members of NATO, and in 1994 they gave us assurances and promised us protection, at least at the verbal level, under the Budapest Memorandum. Therefore, Washington, London and Paris should make a clear and unequivocal statement that if the "red line" is crossed - the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries - this will be the last straw and Moscow will receive a nuclear response," the expert emphasized.

Then, Mr. Honchar assures, everything will fall into place. Otherwise, the Kremlin will regard the mere statement as an unofficial invitation to continue.

"If the West does not continue to take steps in response, the Russian authorities can be sure of their own impunity," he added.

However, the ultimatum should not be the only one. In parallel, the protection of Ukrainian skies should continue to be strengthened.

"Now our country has a certain number of modern missile defense systems - Patriot and SAMP/T. These systems enhance our potential, but we need more. If we have more, Moscow will be afraid of getting caught," says Mr. Honchar.

Our Air Force is quite capable of shooting down a Russian tactical nuclear missile in flight, and then it will not do the damage it is designed to do.

"When it turns out that the missile has been destroyed, the Russians will be in for a treat. After all, the fact of use has taken place in any case, Russia has crossed the threshold, that "red" line. And then the nuclear club of Western countries - the United States, Britain, and France - will automatically have the right to launch a preemptive strike against Russia. This, despite all the "hurrah-patriotic" rhetoric, could become a deterrent for the Kremlin," emphasizes Mykhailo Honchar.

"But even if we don't shoot it down...

Yes, it will be a powerful moral and psychological shock, but the use of TNWs will not lead to any strategic advantage. Instead, the risks and consequences of its use for the Russia will be much greater. The day before, on Espreso.TV on YouTube, US Army General Herbert McMaster spoke about this in more detail.

According to McMaster, Putin's current situation is one of desperation and failure. He has been unsuccessful in achieving his military objectives. McMaster does not believe that Putin would risk a vertical nuclear escalation, as their nuclear weapons are likely not in a functional state. However, if Putin were to use nuclear weapons, it would be a self-destructive act. Any nuclear state attacking a non-nuclear state would face a strong and powerful response. In such a scenario, the Black Sea Fleet and more would be completely destroyed in a matter of one day.

Let us assume that the American general, a recipient of numerous military awards and a national hero in the United States, expressed not only his personal warning to the Kremlin leader, but did so on behalf of the military leadership of the United States. Let's hope that despite all the irrationality of his behavior, the Kremlin will carefully weigh the pros and cons. And that among the dozens of "hotheads" close to him, there will be at least one "cold" but influential head.

Myroslav Liskovych. Kyiv

The first photo: Russian Defense Ministry via AP/picture alliance