Behind Russia’s Nuclear Posture | OilPrice.com

In a July interview with the Russian magazine International Affairs, a senior Russian diplomat, Sergei Ryabkov, argued that in light of Russia’s war in Ukraine, “nuclear deterrence in its traditional sense is not fully working”. His words echoed those of Russian leader Vladimir Putin previous rhetoric on the possibility of conceptual changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine that could lower the threshold for using a small, low-yield device on the battlefield.

On August 27, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed that Moscow was “clarifying” its nuclear doctrine, the official RIA news agency reported. Lavrov’s comments came amid attempts by the Biden administration to minimize the importance of recent updates to the US Nuclear Weapons Employment Planning Guide, which now recognizes the possibility of coordinated nuclear challenges from North Korea, China and Russia.

While at least some of the nuclear saber-rattling from the Kremlin appears to be related to Moscow’s wartime negotiating tactics, the speech itself offers clues about the tip of the iceberg of Russia’s nuclear posture.

On July 31, Russia began the third phase of exercises for its non-strategic nuclear forces (previous phases took place in May and June). During this most recent phase, Russian military personnel practiced installing fake warheads on launch vehicles and moving them to designated areas “in preparation for electronic launches.” conformable to the Russian Ministry of Defense.

In August, Russia unveiled its latest drone, a “Doomsday” first-person aerial vehicle designed to monitor radiation levels in the event of a nuclear attack. According to Dmitri Kuzyakin, the general director of Center for Integrated Unmanned Solutionsthe device can be operated on from inside a sealed armored vehicle while moving.

Such exercises are seen by some experts as a harbinger of a new era in nuclear confrontation. “We are in the advanced stages of a new (nuclear) arms race,” said a military analyst and veteran Israeli intelligence officer. Sergey Migdal said Eurasianet.

With over 5,500 nuclear warheads, Russia currently leads the arms race quantitative terms. United States of America follows with more than 5,044 nuclear weapons located in the US and five other nations: Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey. Outgoing NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said The alliance is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons, considering taking them out of storage and putting them on standby.

In August 2019, Washington he retired of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty after accusing Russia of non-compliance. Moscow responded by declaring the treaty “Officially dead.”

In June, Putin he asked resuming production and potential deployment of nuclear-capable medium- and shorter-range missiles. “It can take two, three or even four years to reach mass production, even under urgent conditions. This is not the same as producing capabilities already developed by Iskander or Kinzhal missiles,” Migdal said. “In the 1990s, the production lines of many military factories in Russia were converted to civilian use, eliminated or simply abandoned,” he added.

Once produced, these short- and medium-range missiles could be stationed in Belarus, the expert said. Another possible location is Leningrad Military Districtnext to new NATO members Finland and Sweden. Other deployment options could include the Southern Military District, with its proximity to fellow NATO member Turkey, and the Eastern Military District, a short distance from US allies Japan and South Korea.

The nuclear bet in space

In the midst of this burgeoning new nuclear arms race, Russia is seeking leverage against the West to secure its war aims in Ukraine, Pavel Luzina visit scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Eurasianet said.

In April, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement that, according to US assessments, “Russia is developing a new satellite carrying a nuclear device.” Around the same time, Moscow KILLED the first UN Security Council resolution on a potential space arms race: if passed, the measure would have reaffirmed members’ adherence to the Outer Space Treaty. In May, the Pentagon suspected that Russia had orbited what he called a “counterspace weapon”.

As for the nature of the device, Luzin suggested it could be a satellite with a nuclear reactor. “Most likely an electronic warfare satellite” with a longer lifespan and an antenna to jam “constellations of satellites in multiple orbits,” he said.

Migdal theorized that it could be “a nuclear warhead launched into space as a component of a satellite with adequate shielding against cosmic radiation and a protected communication channel with the command and control center.” The design could be reminiscent of the Soviet one Fractional Orbital Bombardment System developed in the 1960s, he said, adding that “the foos could be dropped from orbit into enemy territory.”

Other options are plausible, he added, including an “isotope reactor reconnaissance satellite” or a “nuclear reactor powered killer satellite” with space “torpedoes” to destroy rival satellite constellations.

A return to nuclear weapons testing?

The two foundational documents governing Moscow’s use of nuclear weapons are Russia’s military doctrine and the unclassified document. “Basics of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence”.

At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June, Putin connected possible changes to the country’s military doctrine with “nuclear weapons testing”. So far, Russia has used computer simulations for this purpose. “Possible changes could mean resuming underground or atmospheric tests to demonstrate that nuclear weapons are operational,” Migdal said. From Moscow’s point of view, this “would impress London, Berlin and Washington,” he added.

In October 2023, Russia he retired its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, a pact REJECTED by the US Senate in 1999. More Minuteman III missile flight tests are driven every year. In 2023, a missile testing silo was built at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, presumably for the Sentinel missiles that are about to replace the Minuteman III. In the same year, an underground explosion was driven in Rainier Mesa, Nevada. According to Reuters, the United States last executed a nuclear test in 1992, and the Soviet Union last tested in 1990.

Asked during a visit to Vietnam in June about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike under Russia’s nuclear doctrine, Putin to the brush stopped, saying that Russia does not need him “yet”.

“Kremlin is keen to discuss low-yield nukes”

“Recently, Putin personally participated in active exercises. Its main purpose in sending (nuclear warning) signals to the West is not to threaten, but to negotiate,” suggested Luzin, an expert on the Russian armed forces.

During the Trump administration, a special presidential envoy, Marshall S. Billingsleaoffered Russia a dialogue on non-strategic nuclear weapons, but Moscow declined, citing concerns about European nuclear deployment, Luzin said. “Now the Kremlin is suggesting that it is ready to discuss non-strategic nuclear weapons, low-yield nuclear bombs. But only in exchange for favorable conditions in the war in Ukraine,” he added.

A passionate “dealmaker”, Putin comments made in July insisted he was not the instigator of the “nuclear escalation rhetoric”. At the same time, he promoted the destructive force of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. “For some reason, the West believes that Russia will never use them,” Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. “If someone’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all the means at our disposal. .”

So far, the Kremlin’s negotiating techniques have not yielded “much success,” Luzin said.

One comment published under the auspices of the Quincy Institute, an entity dedicated to promoting “ideas that move US foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace,” two experts, Ivana Nikoli? Hughes and Peter Kuznickargue that the longer the war in Ukraine drags on, the greater the risk of a devastating nuclear exchange with the potential to “end human civilization as we know it.”

“The concern that Russia might decide to use nuclear weapons if threatened with defeat in Donbas or Crimea or in a direct war with NATO should not be dismissed lightly,” the co-authors say. “Although the US would be less likely to initiate nuclear war, given NATO’s conventional superiority, it could respond in kind to Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons.”

Lines of communication for “signaling and some kind of interaction” between Moscow and Washington remain open, Migdal said.

On June 25, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III spoke with the Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousovtheir first phone call from the replacement of the former head of defense of Russia Sergei Shoigu. Another conversation followed on July 12. right to Ryabkov, those talks helped avoid “a new round of escalation”.

However, ca Ukraine’s unprecedented incursion in the Kursk region of southwestern Russia continues, the risk of further destabilization with potentially devastating consequences remains substantial.

By Ekaterina Venkina via Eurasianet.org

More top reads from Oilprice.com