UKRAINE | Russia's Nuclear Option?

As the war in Ukraine continues, there's been growing speculation that Russia could be heading towards defeat. This has led to fears that Moscow may resort to desperate measures. There's even been growing talk of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. But is the nuclear threat real? And what would be the likely Western and international response if Russia did launch a nuclear attack?

Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay. Here I take an informed look at International Relations with a focus on conflicts, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please do subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and benefits, consider becoming a channel member. Many thanks!

Since 1945, the international community has lived in the shadow of nuclear weapons. As well as the Superpower confrontation of the Cold War, we have also seen the proliferation of nuclear technology in South and East Asia. However, as nuclear weapons have increased in power, so there's also been a sense that they may never be used. However, over the course of 2022, fears have been growing that we may be on the verge of seeing a nuclear weapon used in combat for the first time in almost 80 years. As the war in Ukraine has continued, Russia has made it clear that it would use all weapons available - including its nuclear arsenal - to defend its position in the east of Ukraine and Crimea. While the United States, European Union and others have warned against any strike, many still believe that such threats are just a bluff. However, there are good reasons to take such claims seriously. In contrast to Western thinking, Russia's military doctrine envisages using nuclear weapons to de-escalate a war. And there's a logic to this. But if it works, it raises the risk that other states could follow. To this extent, if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, the reaction of the wider international community will be vital. Indeed, it could well affects the course of international security for decades to come.

CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction and Titles
00:39 Russia, Ukraine and the Nuclear Threat
01:48 The Origins of Nuclear Weapons
02:43 The Development and Spread of Nuclear Weapons
03:35 Efforts to Limit Nuclear Weapons
04:55 Why Russia May Really Consider A Nuclear Strike
06:57 A Nuclear Strike as a De-Escalation Strategy?
08:27 Western Responses to a Russian Nuclear Strike
10:20 International Reactions to a Strike

RELATED PLAYLISTS

======
FURTHER READING & USEFUL SOURCES

The Nuclear Posture Review and Russian ‘De-Escalation’

======
MY BOOKS

======
MY PROFILES & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS

======
EQUIPMENT& TOOL USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO

======
KEYWORDS

#Russia #Ukraine #Nuclear
#InternationalPolitics #CurrentAffairs #InternationalRelations

DISCLAIMER: Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

[JamesKerLindsay]

There's been growing talk that Russia may well resort to a nuclear strike in Ukraine. But just how seriously should we take it? My sense is that this isn't a bluff. But it may be calculated to end the war - albeit on extremely dangerous terms for international peace and security. Worrying times indeed. Thoughts and comments below?

[PlasticScot]

Channels like this are a staple of reliable information and considered debates

[Estreka]

As a former nuclear operations commander, I have a lot to say about this.
Firstly, we (USA) have a treaty in place within which we inspect each other's nuclear weapons. That not only provides a technical understanding of each other's nuclear capabilities, but also the competency of their procedures and crew force. Like ourselves, there are safeguards in place to restrict the usage of a nuclear weapon without the full agreement of the civilian leadership. I word it that way deliberately. Nuclear operations is specifically unautomated throughout the entire command structure. There are human beings at every level (including the top) to ensure the order is both lawful and correct. The system will not allow any singular individual to give the command to launch a nuclear weapon.
This doesn't mean a launch is impossible, but the situation needs to fit parameters lined out in doctrine and agreed upon by individuals at all levels.
How this applies for a "tactical" nuclear weapon is difficult to say as Russia is essentially unique with that type of platform, but the standards for officers in this career path are well beyond the regular force. I'm also of the mind that any nuclear weapon, no matter how small the yield, is strategic in nature. I'm certain my Russian counterparts would have similar views.
As you've partly discussed, there are myriad ways to dissuade a country from a nuclear strike. There are also a plethora of options for responding, most without escalation. I'm not privy to, nor would I be able to discuss if I were, the pathways developed by the wargamers for such a scenario. But US intel and responses so far have been competent and thorough and I personally trust their judgement to make smart decisions.
There are going to be moments during the course of this war that will give the general public pause and there will be rhetoric utilized to inspire panic. These are intentional. Public opinion is a powerful force, both in a democracy and otherwise. I would suggest viewing these statements through this prism.

[PoliticswithPaint]

Excellent video - unfortunately on a horrifying topic. After the Cold War, people seem to have wilfully forgotten that nuclear weapons are still a reality. And now this ghost is back to haunt us -maybe more so than ever before. Let us hope reason prevails.

[ngolong]

After the bloody crackdown on Chechnya, pretty rich of Russia to talk of self-determination

[lukejohn]

What makes this so scary is the way the Professor has made the use of a nuke sound so reasonable from a Russian perspective.

The de-escalation idea is really terrifying. It's hard to see how Ukraine and/or Nato can just back down or negotiate with Russia after a nuke is dropped anywhere.

Even the Japanese surrender in 1945 may not be as obvious an example of a successful 'de-escalation via nukes' as first appears. Australian historian Paul Ham argues the surrender was not due to the Americans dropping nukes at all, but was because Russia invaded Japanese territory the day after Hiroshima, and the United States agreed not to put Hirohito on trial for Crimes Crimes.

[PlasticScot]

All jokes aside, your videos are fantastic

[classic]

If Russia was allowed to get away with such a strike, it would simply view this as a sign of weakness in the west and keep doing it. And you can bet China would consider doing the same thing with Taiwan.

[ElementaryCharge]

Great analysis, well done and thank you!

[rebbrown]

Thank you for your concise analysis. You have also generated a lively discussion in the comments, which is informative and reasonable in its own right. A rare thing on the internet!

[snwdon]

I'm very thankful for your channel, your analysis is always level-headed and realistic.

[GamingJustice]

As an Estonian, I am pretty sure that he will use nuclear weapons. He would rather nuke Washington than give up in Ukraine. That man has nothing to lose.

[hugodesrosiers-plaisance]

That is some very thought provoking material, especially the bit about a nuclear strike being a way to de-escalate a conflict - it seems very similar to when things get heated between the boys, one lands a square punch and every one is instantly rushing in to keep any one from getting hurt any further. Dostoevsky had a very incisive eye for the human mind, maybe the West is being too dismissive of the Russian perspective on the nuclear question.

[lingSpeed]

Besides the human cost, my biggest worry of nuclear weapons is that using one would demystify them. From magic weapons of death to just problematic devices they are. And im not sure if world knows what "strong action against nuke" should look like, let alone having unity to act on it. Which would let the devil out of the box for every state in possession of them... Great video!

[draegonlore]

"Nuking to de-escalate a conflict" reminds me of Pearl Harbor or the blitz to break morale. It's never worked in the past, and if Russia dares try it now, I only believe the resolve of Ukraine and its supporters will harden in response.

[gondwana]

Kudos on another very well done video -- on the unthinkable. I especially liked your scenarios and note that in fact Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deescalations. I wish you would write a similar article for the FT, which sorely lacks such insight.

[justasklimas]

I feel like a crucial question here is the reaction from China, and Russia's expectations of how China would react. China holds considerable leverage over Russia, and probably would be able to dissuade Russia if it really wanted to. The question is, how does Beijing view the subject?

[AwtaMadik]

What's really scary is the caliber of leaders we have in office right now compared to what we had back during to the cold war.

[oihanlarranegi]

Really well presented. Until now I had discarded any idea of using nuclear weapons as simply madness, but you point out very interesting and (sadly) plausible scenarios. Of course, then we must consider the idea of wether the Russian nuclear arsenal is really mostly operative, or has lost its power due to a lack of maintenance. Either way, bad times, let's hope reason prevails.

[sloshed-rat]

This is like trying to rob a bank with a bomb strapped to your chest, "Give me what I want or I'll kill us all."