Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia

With its recent incursion into Russian territory in the vicinity of Kursk, Ukraine has taken the war to a new place: for the first time, Russian territory is actuall occupied by Ukrainians. This follows other Ukrainian escalations that involved sending drones into Russian territory to attack military facilities. A recent video asks a reasonable question: why was Ukraine not deterred by Russian nuclear weapons? And why has Russia not used nuclear weapons?

This question is not as reasonable as it sounds, however. It is true that Ukraine occupies some Russian territory, but it is a very small amount: well under ten miles beyond the border, and it holds no significant towns (Kursk being beyond its reach). Also, I think few expect Ukraine to remain there for a long time. The question would be more pertinent if Ukraine managed to occupy a significant portion of Russian territory.

But the question of Russian use of nuclear weapons is definitely pertinent; and the Ukrainian incursion makes it more so. What is holding Russia back from using nuclear weapons to win the war? The video makes two salient points, both of which I agree with. First, although Russia is relatively isolated internationally, it is not without allies. In particular, China and India continue to buy gas from Russia, which gives Putin the currency to prosecute the war. The thought is that China and India have discouraged Putin from using nuclear weapons, and if he ignores them, he risks isolating Russia further and losing his source of financing the war.

Second, nuclear war is more of a threat than something one uses to win an offensive war, and Russia does seem to want to occupy Ukraine. It is not a good idea to create nuclear fallout over a territory that one sends one’s own citizens into. Therefore, nuclear weapons are not idea for Putin’s ends.

That doesn’t mean that he can’t or won’t use them, however. The video suggests two lesser alternatives: using tactical nuclear weapons, or performing a test explosion on Russian soil to signal that Russia is serious about using nukes. I would agree, and I would say that Russia has already been doing lesser versions of these same things by moving nuclear warheads into Belarus, performing nuclear exercises, and by having President Medved make threatening comments about using nuclear weapons. These are all sabre-rattling intended to suggest that Russia might use nuclear weapons if the war takes a turn against them.

The video explains that a tactical nuclear explosion in the rear of the Ukrainian invasion (i.e., on Ukrainian soil but affecting the supply of Ukrainian forces in Russia) is not a good idea because prevailing winds would blow the fallout over Russian territory. I think, however, that Russia is very far from using nuclear weapons as an actual war-winning strategy. Instead, they are much more likely to use a nuclear warhead the first time to send a message. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they fired a warhead at a relatively empty part of Ukraine and then claimed that it was an accident, perhaps fired by a rogue general or perhaps by a computer glitch.

Nuclear escalation is a tricky game, which no one has ever tried much in reality (apart from the Cuban Missile Crisis). No one wants a global nuclear war, which would of course have no winners; and no one wants to initiate a limited war, even against a helpless opponent such as Ukraine, for fear of becoming a pariah. But there are quite a few steps one could take to threaten nuclear war in a serious way without actually initiating it. This is what we call brinkmanship, and it applies in conventional as well as nuclear warfare. It is pretty much the same scenario that gets played out in schools and homes when kids try to provoke their classmates or siblings without doing something that could actually get them punished. If you have ever been in that kind of situation, you know that children can be ingenious at the game; and I expect the Russians to be at least as clever.

A “mistakenly fired” warhead would be chilling to the world. Would anyone believe that it was a mistake? Maybe not, but maybe it would be credible enough for China and India to overlook it, perhaps while issuing more warnings to Putin. Meanwhile, would the West assume that Putin would stop with one such mistake? I have read articles arguing that all of Putin’s nuclear threats are mere bluster, but a single nuclear explosion has a way of getting people’s attention, even if he claims it was not on purpose.

I think we are a ways from such an escalation. In fact, I think for the moment that Putin is fairly content with the war and would be willing to have it end now, although he won’t make the first move because he does not want to be seen as the supplicant. The Ukrainian invasion is an embarrassment, but a minor one, which he is likely to take care of relatively soon. Unless Ukrainian forces remain in Russia, and repeat the incursion many more times, I don’t think it will cause Putin to think of escalation.