Putin and his nuclear card

The destruction and overwhelmingly high casualty toll suffered during the long battle for the city of Bakhmut has underlined for President Putin that however this particular battle ends he will never be able to declare victory. Bakhmut will always be remembered as the city which proved Putin's so-called special military operation was bound to fail in its objectives. First because the Russian leader underestimated the commitment of the Ukrainian military forces to defend their country; and second because of the West's united support for the Kyiv government. Under such circumstances, is the nuclear option still the single most devastating card Putin has to play? Or would the launching of tactical nuclear weapons be the final acknowledgement by the Kremlin that the war to take control of Ukraine has irrevocably failed? *Why would Putin resort to nuclear weapons? After 15 months of war and the prospect of a never-ending conflict ahead of him, Putin who has sole command of Russia's large stockpile of tactical nuclear bombs and missiles, could come to the conclusion that only a mighty blow using the most deadly weapon at his disposal would save his nation, and his regime, from humiliation and ignominy. Putin and Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, have stated that Moscow would have the right to turn to nuclear weapons if the very existence of the Russian motherland faced extinction. Putin's definition of an existential threat to Russia may have changed. He may see a prolonged war with accelerating Russian casualties and the harm it is doing to the country's economic well-being as justification for going nuclear. Avril Haines, director of US National intelligence, the organisation which heads up all 18 of America's intelligence agencies, is still convinced that it is "unlikely" Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But the most difficult question facing the West's intelligence services is trying to guess or second-guess what is in Putin's mind. Looking at the nuclear issue from a western standpoint, the answer seems clear. Strategically and tactically it would make little sense. Tactical nuclear weapons, with their more limited range and potency, would be devastating but would not guarantee either an end to the war or an instant "victory" for Putin. However, in Putin's mind, using nuclear weapons could be his way of throwing the gauntlet down to the West, his message being: "by continuing to arm Kyiv with increasingly advanced weaponry to hurt Russian forces I had no other choice." *What is stopping Putin from launching tactical nuclear weapons? There are two principal reasons. First is China. President Xi Zinping has publicly stated and, no doubt privately warned Putin in person, that nuclear weapons should never be used. China is Russia's strategic partner. The alliance between the two nations has grown exponentially since the war in Ukraine began. The Chinese leader has never condemned his Russian friend for invading Ukraine but, so far, he has not offered military help. Furthermore, he is trying to position himself as a peacemaker, attempting to forge a settlement that would bring a diplomatic end to the war and boost his own reputation and power on the global stage. Putin will know that if he orders a nuclear strike, however limited, his partnership with China would be put at grave risk if not destroyed. The second reason is the likely response from US and NATO. Putin may argue the case in his mind that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would not lead to a nuclear or conventional counterstrike by the West because Kyiv is not a member of the western alliance and is therefore not covered by Article Five of the organisation's founding treaty. This guarantees that an attack on an individual member of the alliance is equivalent to an attack on Nato as a whole. However, the US has made it clear that the use of nuclear weapons by Putin in Ukraine would have "catastrophic consequences" for Russia. What these consequences would be have not been spelled out. But could it lead to a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia? Could President Biden be persuaded to send an armoured division or more into Ukraine to fight alongside Ukrainian troops? Putin has to take these possible scenarios into account before gambling on his nuclear options. *Has anything changed which makes it more or less likely that Putin will use nuclear weapons? It could be argued that out of desperation because of the way his war has backfired, Putin will risk going nuclear. However, this picture of a leader pressing the nuclear button like a man with nowhere else to turn is not realistic. Putin has shown that he is prepared to battle on, irrespective of the appalling losses his troops have suffered. He will grab what he can, and if the destroyed Bakhmut eventually falls into his hands, it will convince him to continue pursuing his war aims, even though the capture of the city would not advance his strategic objectives. What has changed, however, is the scale and quality of the weaponry provided by the US-led coalition of 50 countries. Now that the US has finally agreed for American-built F-16 fighter jets to be supplied to Ukraine, the battle for air superiority will pose a new and potentially crucial phase in the war. Russia has failed to win air superiority largely due to effective Ukrainian defences - and now especially with US Patriot missile systems in operation. Once the Ukrainian air force has F-16s, Kyiv will have a better chance to dominate the battleground below. Moscow has warned of "enormous risks" if the West goes ahead with sending these fighter aircraft to Ukraine. When he used these words was Alexander Grushko, Russia's deputy foreign minister, hinting that the arrival of F-16s could lead to a nuclear response? Moscow has been warning of the nuclear option since the war began. It has been interpreted by Western governments as a propaganda tool, a way of scaring the West into backing off with its supplies of weapons to Kyiv, not as a serious ultimatum. Grushko's warning has been viewed in the same light. But can the West still be confident it can prevent what President Biden always said he wanted to avoid: a dramatic and dangerous escalation in the war. Could the supply of F-16s be Putin's red line? Or could it be some other weapon system provided in the future which makes the Russian leader begin to think seriously about the tactical nuclear option? Putin has already gone one step further with his nuclear card when he announced in March he would be sending tactical nuclear weapons to be based in Belarus. It was Putin's most pronounced nuclear signal to the West since Russian troops invaded Ukraine in February last year. Putin said the construction of a storage facility in Belarus would be completed by July 1. Whenever asked, the Biden administration has stated that there have been no signs that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. "We have not seen any reason to adjust our own strategic nuclear posture," has been the stock response. However, if tactical nuclear bombs are moved to Belarus which shares borders with three Nato countries, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, it may force a reassessment of Putin's likely options if the war in Ukraine fails to give him the strategic trophies he thought would fall into his hands months ago.