Should we take Putin’s nuclear threat seriously?

The spectre of nuclear war is looming large, after Vladimir Putin announced that he is moving Russia’s nuclear deterrent to “special alert”, hinting at just how far the Kremlin is willing to go to seize Ukraine. 

“I order the minister of defence and the chief of general staff [of the Russian armed forces] to put deterrent forces on special combat duty,” said the Russian president on state television on Sunday afternoon. 

Putin cited NATO “aggression” and the “illegitimate sanctions” imposed on Moscow as the reason for this move.

For some, the announcement has conjured up fearful memories of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when Washington and Moscow came dangerously close to nuclear war.

But how worried should we really be by this escalatory move? 

What is behind the move? 

Moving Russia’s nuclear deterrent to “special alert” does not actually mean that Putin intends to use the weapons. Though it is likely an attempt to stoke fear, and get the West’s attention – in which case, it’s working. 

The very public shift to high alert status is a way for Moscow to send a warning to NATO, and try to deter it from sending further help to Ukraine. 

Arguably, it’s a sign of Putin’s growing desperation; the Kremlin is resorting to dramatic threats because Russia’s offensive is proving bumpier than expected. On day five, Russia is yet to capture a single major Ukrainian city. Russian casualties are steadily rising. 

It’s also worth noting that the nuclear announcement came shortly after Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed that delegations from Kyiv and Moscow would meet for negotiations on the Belarus border. Thus Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has interpreted the threat as “an attempt to raise the stakes and to put additional pressure on the Ukrainian delegation” before the meeting. 

What does this order actually mean? 

While Putin’s announcement is clearly a provocation to the West, it’s not entirely clear what this “special combat duty” order means in practice.

“Special alert” is thought to be the highest level of alert for Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces. And, according to Pavel Podvig, a researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament, this step would “make the nuclear command and control system able to react if necessary.” Perhaps a useful analogy is to think of the threat as amounting to releasing the safety catch on a firearm.

It would make it easier to launch nuclear weapons, and to make a first strike at short notice.

But, Podvid stresses, “it does not mean preparation for a first strike.”

What is Russia’s nuclear arsenal?

The exact number of nuclear tools at Russia’s disposal is a state secret. However, intelligence estimates are sobering. 

Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, followed closely by the US. 

According to estimates by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Russia owns more than half of the world’s 14,000 nuclear weapons: it has over 6000 warheads, while the US has around 5,500, the UK around 225, North Korea just 40 to 50 and China 350. 

Most of Moscow’s 6000 plus warheads are in reserve, with only about 1,600 deployed as land, sea, and air-based weapons. 

Can Russian nukes reach as far as Britain? The answer is a resounding yes. Russia has around 527 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and ICBMs can reach a speed of four miles per second about 10 minutes after launch, meaning the weapons could potentially reach the UK from Russia in just 20 minutes.

Putin has also claimed, during a 2018 state-of-the-nation address, that Russia is now in possession of several new classes of nuclear weapon, including a nuclear powered cruise missile with effectively unlimited ranges.

Commons Defence Committee chairman, Tobias Ellwood, has warned that in the “worst-case scenario” of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Putin could deploy low-yield, short-range tactical nuclear weapons. Limited tactical nuclear weapons use could include things like strikes on isolated military targets situated far from population centres. 

Interestingly, Ukraine inherited a large number of nuclear weapons after the dissolution of the Soviet Union – indeed, in 1991, it possessed around one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time. Yet Ukraine decided to fully denuclearise under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under this memorandum, Ukraine agreed to surrender its entire nuclear arsenal, but one of the key conditions for doing so was that Russia would, in return, guarantee Ukraine’s security and the integrity of its borders.

How is the West responding?

The US has condemned Putin’s nuclear posturing as “totally unacceptable” while NATO chief, Jens Stoltenberg, described it as “dangerous” and “irresponsible” rhetoric, which only “adds to the seriousness of the situation”.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has pointed out that any use of nuclear or chemical weapons could see Russian leaders brought before the International Criminal Court.

So far, the Western response has been to avoid escalating the language, and not to retaliate with any further threats of nuclear deployment. 

Putin’s provocation is an apt reminder, however, of why NATO has repeatedly said it will not send troops to Ukraine. Western allies have deemed direct military intervention in Kiev too risky, in large part because of the lingering threat of nuclear war, 

Of course, Russia may have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world but Putin also knows full well that NATO has enough weapons of its own to destroy Russia if they were used.

Thus the hope is that the logic – and fear – of mutual assured destruction that defined the Cold War will still work today.