Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokescritter Dmitry “dig my porn-stache” Peskov appeared on the little-watch CNN show hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The big message that Peskov seemed to try to get across to Amanpour’s audience was that Russia is perfectly willing to use nukes to get its way.
BREAKING: Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov says Russia would use nuclear weapons if faced with “existential” threat.
“…If it is an existential threat, a threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our concept.”pic.twitter.com/X5Z6XBlSnq
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 22, 2022
CNN interviewed Peskov, who denied excluding the possibility of using nuclear weapons.
“We have a concept of domestic security and, well, it’s public, you can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used,” he said. “If it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used.”
According to a 2020 statement on Russia’s nuclear policy, signed by Putin, the country would use nuclear weapons in two scenarios: in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other unconventional arms against Moscow or its allies — or in response to “aggression” using conventional arms “when the very existence of the state is put under threat,” per the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
CNN provides more detail.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chief spokesman has conceded that Russia has yet to achieve any of its military goals in Ukraine and refused to deny that Moscow could resort to the use of nuclear weapons.
In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, Dmitry Peskov repeatedly refused to rule out that Russia would consider using nuclear weapons against what Moscow saw as an “existential threat.” When asked under what conditions Putin would use Russia’s nuclear capability, Peskov replied, “if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be.”
Putin previously suggested that Russia could use nuclear weapons to attack nations he considered to be a danger. Back in February, the Russian President said in a televised statement, “No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”
He then said in a televised meeting with Russian defense officials that “officials in leading NATO countries have allowed themselves to make aggressive comments about our country, therefore I hereby order the Minister of Defense and the chief of the General Staff to place the Russian Army Deterrence Force on combat alert.”
How does this all translate?
Russia is not like the United States which has a policy against nuclear weapons being used against non-nuclear countries. In fact, Russia has a strategic theory called escalate-to-deescalate.
It does not mean Russia will make use of such weapons. However, deterrence seems to be strong at strategic levels. However, at the tactical levels, things are quite different. The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review ascribed to Russia the view that “the threat of nuclear escalation or even first use of nuclear weapons would serve to de-escalate a conflict on terms favorable to Russia.” Russian military theorists have certainly discussed this idea of “escalating to de-escalate,” though whether it is a part of Russian doctrine is disputed among students of Russian strategy. “Escalating to de-escalate” in a war with NATO would run the serious risk of escalation rather than de-escalation. However, small-scale tactical nuclear weapon use might prove tempting in a war against a non-nuclear enemy. This is especially true if things are not working out as planned. The temptation to push the envelope in an already tight spot could be powerful.
In other words, if the war in Ukraine goes pear-shaped, and I think it is safe to say we are getting close to that point, it would not be outside Russian strategic thinking to pop a smallish nuke somewhere in Ukraine and say to NATO, “stop supplying Ukraine right now or I’ll do the same to you.”
We are probably in the middle or at least part of this strategy. Remember Putin’s speech announcing he was invading Ukraine.
For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.
…
I would now like to say something very important for those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope that my words will be heard.
Here he ties NATO membership by countries bordering Russia as a threat to Russia’s aspirations and therefore to Russia’s very existence. Remember that Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all already included in this category. He also labels interfering with Russia’s operations in Ukraine as another red line that will cause Russia to “respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”
We also don’t know what is meant by “the very existence of the state is put under threat.” Does this refer to a victory parade through Red Square? It could refer to Russia being excluded from its rightful position in the sun. Or does it refer to the political, and maybe corporal, existence of Vladimir Putin, who strikes me as very much a “lL‘état, c’est moi” You are a kind of man?
Russia is a nuclear power. We must assume that some nuclear weapons still function, despite the fact that they are unlikely to survive 30 years of Russian quality maintenance. It is certain that this fact won’t change. However, Russia’s nukes are becoming more casual and threatening. This is not a reason to submissively urinate when Russia does. Putin’s public statements about his plans for the future cannot be used to make us submit. This will lead to the dissolution of all NATO members bordering Russia. He will continue to use this tactic until he has found his way.
However, we know for certain that Putin is not likely to use any human rights or moral arguments to nuke Kiev or other Ukrainian cities. We have an obligation, however, to make it clear in public that we will retaliate against him if he uses a nuclear weapon to target a Russian city. From Putin to those who replaced the tires on the vehicles used for transporting the warhead, we will find them and hunt them down.
Personally, I think Putin and his nuke threats remind me of Cleavon Leslie in Blazing Saddles. If we believe in the Putin framework, they will work.
About Post Author
