President Vladimir Putin’s threat to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine if Russian “territorial integrity” is threatened has sparked deep discussion in the West as to how it would respond.
“Those who are trying to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the wind can also turn in their direction,” Putin said, adding: “This is not a bluff.”
However analysts aren’t convinced the Russian president is willing to be the first to unleash nuclear weapons since the US bombed Japan in 1945.
AFP spoke with several experts and officials about the possible scenarios that could arise should Russia carry out a nuclear attack.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
What would a Russian nuclear attack look like?
Analysts say Moscow would likely deploy one or more “tactical” or battlefield nuclear bombs.
These are small weapons, ranging from 0.3 kilotons to 100 kilotons of explosive power, compared to the 1.2 megatons of the largest US strategic warhead or the 58 megaton bomb Russia tested in 1961.
Tactical bombs are designed to have a limited impact on the battlefield, compared to strategic nuclear weapons which are designed to fight and win all-out wars.
But “small” and “limited” are relative: The atom bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 to devastating effect was just 15 kilotons.
What would Moscow target?
Analysts say Russia’s goal in using a tactical nuclear bomb in Ukraine would be to frighten it into surrender or submission to negotiations, and to divide the country’s Western backers.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
Mark Cancian, a military expert with the CSIS International Security Program in Washington, said Russia would not likely use nuclear weapons on the front lines.
Capturing 20 miles (32 kilometers) of territory could require 20 small nuclear bombs — small gains for the huge risks of introducing nuclear weapons and nuclear fallout.
“Just using one will not be enough,” Cancian said.
Moscow could instead send a strong message and avoid significant casualties by detonating a nuclear bomb over water, or exploding one high over Ukraine to generate an electromagnetic pulse that would knock out electronic equipment.
Or Putin could opt for greater destruction and death: attacking a Ukraine military base, or hitting an urban center like Kyiv, generating mass casualties and possibly killing the country’s political leadership.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
Such scenarios “would likely be designed to split the NATO alliance and global consensus against Putin,” Jon Wolfsthal, a former white House nuclear policy expert, wrote Friday on Substack.
But “it is unclear if it would succeed, and could just as easily be seen as desperation as resolve,” he said.
Should the West respond with nukes?
The West has remained ambiguous on how it would respond to a tactical nuclear strike, and the choices are complicated.
The United States and NATO do not want to appear weak in front of an implicit nuclear threat.
But they also would want to avoid the possibility that the war in Ukraine — not a NATO member — could escalate into a much broader, devastating global nuclear war.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
Experts say the West would have no option but to respond, and that a response should come from NATO as a group, rather than the United States alone.
Any response should “ensure both that Putin’s military situation did not improve from such a strike, and that his political, economic and personal position suffered as a result,” said Wolfsthal.
The United States has positioned about 100 of its own tactical nuclear weapons in NATO countries and could respond in kind against Russian forces.
That would demonstrate resolve and remind Moscow of the danger of its actions, according to Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council.
However, he said, “it might also provoke a Russian nuclear reprisal, raising the risk of a larger nuclear exchange and further humanitarian disaster.”
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
Another risk is that some NATO members might reject a nuclear response, serving Putin’s aims of weakening the alliance.
Give Ukraine the ability to attack Russia?
Answering a Russian nuclear attack in a more conventional military or diplomatic way, and supplying Ukraine with more lethal arms to attack Russia, could be more effective, experts say.
“Russian nuclear use might provide an opening to convince countries that have so far been reluctant — such as India and possibly even China — to participate in escalating sanctions,” said Kroenig.
In addition, the United States could offer Ukraine NATO aircraft, Patriot and THAAD anti-missile batteries, and ATACMS long-range missiles that could be used by Ukraine forces to strike deep inside Russia.
“Whatever restrictions we have on Ukraine forces — and I think we have some restrictions — I think we take all of those off,” said Cancian.
The new truce plan in Gaza includes “many demands” from Hamas, according to an Egyptian source
The talks held between delegations from Egypt and Israel in Tel Aviv for a truce in Gaza were “largely positive and successful” and included “many of the demands” of the Islamist movement Hamas, an Egyptian security source familiar with the negotiations and another from Hamas reported to EFE on Sunday.
A delegation from Hamas, headed by the member of the political bureau Khalil al-The Hague, is expected to arrive tomorrow in Cairo, mediator in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group, to deliver its response to the mediators, according to the Egyptian source, which asked not to be identified by the sensitivity of this issue.
This new proposal, on whose content it did not provide details, “overcomes the obstacles that hinder” the declaration of a truce, a ceasefire, the exchange of prisoners and hostages, as well as the entry of aid into the Gaza Strip.
The possible announcement of a truce “will contribute to the approval of a first phase and to the efforts of the entire international community to consolidate this ceasefire and seek to move to a permanent truce instead of a temporary one,” according to the informant.
On the other hand, a source of the Palestinian Islamist movement, which also asked for anonymity, confirmed to EFE that tomorrow a delegation from Hamas will arrive in the Egyptian capital to present its response to the new Israeli proposal.
The informant added that the proposal includes “reducing the minimum number of kidnapped that Hamas will commit to freeing and eliminating divisions in sections of the Gaza Strip.”
Last Friday, an Egyptian mediating delegation traveled to Tel Aviv to discuss this truce with Israel, while the Jewish State has warned that it will not allow the Palestinian group to delay and has once again threatened to invade Rafah, at the southern end of the strip and where more than a million refugees are overcrowded.
Hamas warns the United Kingdom that if it sends soldiers to Gaza they will be a “legitimate” military target
The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas warned the United Kingdom on Sunday that if it deploys military personnel in the Gaza Strip, after information that they could help in the distribution of humanitarian aid, they will be “legitimate targets” of its armed wing.
“We alert Britain, or any other country, against the deployment of forces on land or on the coast of the Gaza Strip and affirm that they will be legitimate targets for our people and their resistance,” Hamas said in a statement.
The armed group charged against any initiative in the Palestinian enclave that does not have its approval.
The Islamist group responded to the information released on Saturday by the British network BBC, according to which the British Armed Forces could deploy troops to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground arriving in Gaza through the new floating dock that is being built by Israel and the United States.
The public broadcaster indicated that the United Kingdom could be the intermediary to which the United States referred when it said that it would not be the American soldiers, but others, who would distribute the food packages sent by ship from Cyprus and then transferred to Gaza.
Yesterday, the Israeli Army assured at a press conference with international media that international organizations would be in charge of the distribution of humanitarian aid, but did not indicate which ones would have agreed to collaborate.
Although the British Government has not confirmed the news, the BBC affirms, according to anonymous sources, that the Ministry of Defense is considering getting involved with ‘wet boots’ on the ground.
The possible role of the British forces would involve driving the trucks with the help from the landing boats on the floating runway, hundreds of meters long, and delivering it to a safe distribution area on dry land, the station explained.
The London Ministry of Defense reported on Friday, in turn, that the British Navy auxiliary ship RFA Cardigan Bay set sail from Cyprus to provide support for the construction of the temporary dock, which is led by the United States.
This ship will provide accommodation for hundreds of American sailors and soldiers, about whom Washington has made it clear that they will not set foot in Gaza territory.
Nancy Pelosi says that Netanyahu “could not have made things worse” in Gaza
Former President of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, “could not have made things worse” in the conflict in Gaza, in an interview broadcast this Sunday by the BBC.
Pelosi, who on Thursday participated in an event at the English university of Oxford, told the ‘Laura Kuenssberg Program’ that Netanyahu “was never a peace agent” and admitted that she “is not a great fan of his.”
The congresswoman said that what is happening in the Strip “challenges the conscience of the world” and maintained that the impact of famine on children “is almost unforgivable”, while calling the Hamas attack on Israeli territory on October 7 “barbaric”.
“Israel has the right to defend itself, but the way it is doing it is a challenge because Netanyahu has never been a peace agent,” he said.
“I’m not a great admirer of yours; I couldn’t have done things worse than those tens of thousands, or whatever number it is, of dead people, malnourished children and the uncertainty that exists… and that’s what people are talking about,” he said.
Asked if she understood why young people in the United States used controversial tactics when protesting against the conflict, Pelosi opined that “when they go beyond the campuses and block the Golden Gate Bridge, or something else, for a long time, and people can’t go to the doctor or the hospital or anything urgent in their lives, they don’t get support.”
But he added: “How can demonstrations on (university) campuses be criticized? That’s a way of life in the United States.”
On Thursday, the British police evicted two pro-Palestinian protesters who protested during their speech on populism to students from the University of Oxford, while abroad another group criticized her for her defense of Israel and her position on the movement to support Palestine.
