A Nuclear Pandora’s Box in the Standoff Between Russia and the West

The war in Ukraine has this week entered a decisive phase, with Russian President Vladimir Putin ordering referenda in Donbas to annex Russian-controlled breakaway regions in Ukraine, referenda whose outcome will change the rules of the war. At the same time, Mr Putin has seriously invoked his nuclear options and declared a partial mobilization of up to 300,000 conscripts, indicating the expansion of the war in the coming weeks. It is now clear to anyone who had thought there was hope Mr Putin would take steps to negotiate or back down that the Russian leader is convinced he can – and is determined to – prevail in Ukraine and will not entertain even the idea of defeat. Such an outcome will no doubt require a ruthlessness and ‘deliberate mistakes’ that will destroy Ukrainian infrastructure and take no stock of the humanitarian cost or of others’ values in warfare. The Russian leader is not afraid of inviting a European and US military intervention and has put NATO on edge by talking about victory at any cost, including a nuclear cost.

On the other hand, it is clear that US and European leaders have made their decision in the equation of victory-or-defeat and will not allow Russia to seize Ukraine no matter the cost. This means that what appeared impossible a month or two ago, is now in the realm of plausibility, meaning US and European troops directly intervening in the war, in the event of Russia deploying tactical nukes – which are not strictly ‘tactical’ or ‘small radius’ weapons. So who will win and who will lose in Ukraine?

First, let’s address the big picture, the US strategy which many believe was to implicate Mr Putin to destroy the Russian ruling system if not Russia itself, for calculations related to the US grand strategy vis-à-vis China’s rise. Yet, it must be said that no matter the planners’ genius, it requires the target to fall into the trap.

Indeed, Mr Putin did not resist this trap then doubled down. He thought his infamous ultimatums and escalations would force the West to back down and comply with his demands, and therefore, enable a Russian victory. So far, Mr Putin has lost his bets, and continues to follow the path charted for him by the Western powers towards an ambush that could destroy Russia.

Some in Russia whisper comparisons between the Afghan war that destroyed the Soviet Union and the Ukraine war that is destroying Russia. The Russian president can no longer second guess his war in Ukraine, because backing down now means the collapse of his entire regime as well as Mr Putin himself. Yet the paradox is that continuing this war also risks total collapse if Russia loses. For this reason, defeat is not a word in the dictionary of Mr Putin and his military, especially after the war exposed the latter’s weakness and undermined its prestige.

A NATO victory in the war would mean dismantling Russia, its system, and the model Mr Putin built Russia on. It means the end of Putin’s Russia and Russia as we know it.

From the US point of view, defeating Russia helps American strategy against China. US National Security Council strategists believe that destroying the Russian regime by defeating Russia would cause China to lose a strategic partner practically and psychologically. It also means, according to an informed expert, that China would lose its Russian ‘buffer zone’, forcing it to the front line in the strategic standoff with the United States.

Of course, some challenge this thinking and the logic of destroying Russia for the sake of the US strategic equation with China. Some also underscore the risks of NATO’s strategy if the Ukraine war escalates to the nuclear threshold and culminates with a Russian victory, as Mr Putin believes.

Firstly, reaching the nuclear threshold, whether through tactical nukes or nuclear-capable Iskander missiles, could open the proverbial Pandora’s Box.

Second, Russia could deliberately expand the scope of its victory or defeat: If Russia prevails, it will not stop at its current boundaries with NATO and will seek to reshuffle the geopolitical deck in Europe by acting against Poland the Baltic states. If Russia is defeated, on the other hand, Mr Putin will make ‘deliberate mistakes’ such as attacking NATO airbases in Poland near Ukraine, according to sources close to the thinking of the Kremlin. Mr Putin will not allow even the notion of defeat to pass in all scenarios.

The coming two weeks are crucial. The Russian president will not allow Ukraine to be shared by two sides. Nor will the Ukrainian president, who is confident NATO will guarantee him the military edge in the war with Russia. Volodymyr Zelensky will not back down, and he sees Mr Putin’s failure to remove him from power as the start of his victory in Ukraine. Moreover, modern warfare is different, and is not limited to the battlefield: It’s also a technological war, and Mr Zelensky is fighting against Russia’s invasion with NATO’s advanced technology.

NATO may be forced to intervene directly in the war, for example to protect Ukraine’s nuclear reactors, if requested by Mr Zelensky. Ukraine is home to 14 reactors in addition to Russian-controlled Zaporizhzhia. In that scenario, the war would become a European war.

The United States, also to help protect the nuclear reactors, may be willing to supply long-rage missiles to Ukraine with a range of up to 400 km, putting Crimea and even Moscow in range. In that case, according to a Russian expert, Russia could deploy nuclear weapons.

In truth, the Russian president is paving the way to say that using nuclear weapons is legitimate to defend Russia against aggression, following the referenda in Donbas that will conclude on 27 September with a predetermined outcome: The annexation of those regions to Russia. Subsequently, from 29-30 September, after the Russian Duma endorses the results, any assault on those ‘Russian regions’ would become an assault on Russia, giving the Kremlin the ‘right’ to respond by all means necessary, included nuclear ones.

Put differently, according to an expert on breakaway regions, “the buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine will disappear, and the war will enter a new threshold that includes the activation of Russian strategic nuclear instruments based on national laws to defend Russian territories using all available means”.

Russian military victory, if it were to transpire, would require full destruction along the lines of the so-called Baghdad scenario, in reference to the US shock and awe tactics to win war. Moving to those tactics is very possible following the referenda and the partial mobilization. For this reason, the next two weeks are very dangerous.

On 7 October, Vladimir Putin will celebrate his 70th birthday. The Russian people are semi-comatose when it comes to the reality of the war. The partial mobilization may wake them up a little to realize the seriousness of the confrontation between Russia and NATO. The Russian president’s birthday traditionally carries new developments, surprises, and insistence on achievements. The fear is that these achievements may be…nuclear.