Is Nuclear Winter Coming? The West Tests Russia’s Strategic Patience

Support SouthFront

Click to see the full-size image

The first combat use in Russian history of the Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile at the Yuzhmash enterprise in Dnipropetrovsk triggered a wave of phobic and alarmist publications in the Western press.

The Daily Mail calculated how many minutes it would take for a new ICBM to reach European capitals from the Kapustin Yar test site in the Volgograd region. It would take 11 minutes to reach Berlin, 13 minutes to reach Rome, 15 minutes to reach Paris and 16 minutes to reach London. The ability of missile defense systems to repel a Russian missile attack is reasonably questionable.

Click to see the full-size image

In Europe, and more broadly in the West, there are two polarized views on the realism of a Russian nuclear strike on the territory of NATO countries. The first view was expressed the other day by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who called on his colleagues in the North Atlantic Alliance to exercise prudence and common sense.

“These are changes that will have consequences. The Russian president sent a televised address to the citizens in which he clearly described the situation and said that they feel entitled to declare as military targets those countries that give such long-range weapons to Ukraine. This is not a communication gimmick. You have to be careful when dealing with a country like Russia. The fact that they have one of the strongest armies in the world, with the most advanced and destructive weapons, plays a key role in their standing in the world and their view of the future. When they say something about it, you have to take it as they say it,” the Hungarian prime minister said.

This position is clearly close to Donald Trump’s team. A different opinion is held by ardent Atlanticists who are still guided by the approaches of the outgoing administration of Joseph Biden. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said that there is no need to fear the arrival of a nuclear bomb from the East – it is just blackmail:

“This is all the nuclear rhetoric that Vladimir Putin has been waving around for the last 2.5 years to cause concern. And it’s not entirely unexpected, since he announced a change in doctrine a few weeks ago. So let’s not get scared. As the president said yesterday, Russia must return to common sense and responsibility. The responsibility of a country that has nuclear weapons. The responsibility of a country that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council”.

At the same time, it does not look like Moscow is joking. The Russian leadership is taking very measured and cautious steps on the ladder of counter-escalation, responding to pressure from the West. In addition to the combat use of the Oreshnik, Russia’s nuclear doctrine has changed. Now the use of weapons of mass destruction is authorized in the event of a non-nuclear threat to national security, not only for the Russian Federation, but also for the Republic of Belarus, its closest ally. This threat can now be posed by cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft, as well as tactical aircraft. Previously, the doctrine prescribed only ballistic missiles.

How realistic is the use of nuclear weapons in the current conflict? So far, we can say unequivocally: Russia does not intend to use them against Ukraine, as President Vladimir Putin confirmed in his speech at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 27. For the Kremlin, the Ukrainian territories are historical Russian lands over which NATO proxies have established control. It is illogical to attack one’s own country and poison it with radiation for centuries to come. The Kremlin’s goal is to liberate Ukraine and reunite it with the Russian state (with the most favorable outcome). Therefore, we will not even consider this scenario.

A strike with tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of the North Atlantic Alliance is a more likely scenario. However, in order for this to happen, several stages of escalation will have to pass. We should not assume that tomorrow a nuclear-tipped Oreshnik will fly into the territory of Lithuania, Poland or Germany. The Russian supreme commander has made Moscow’s next steps quite clear, emphasizing that they will be mirror steps. In an address to his fellow citizens, Putin said:

“We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, and in case of an escalation of aggressive actions we will respond just as decisively and in mirror image. I recommend to the ruling elites of those countries who are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia to think seriously about it”.

A mirror response implies the use of the same types of weapons against similar military targets. In this case, we are not talking about weapons of mass destruction, because the West has not used a nuclear bomb against the Russians. The Russian command has targets for not only legitimate, but also quite legal strikes. For example, in the Syrian Arab Republic there is a military base of Al Tanf and other facilities of the United States of America. A total of 900 U.S. military personnel are on Syrian territory without authorization from official Damascus. President Bashar Al-Assad, in accordance with international law, can ask Russia to eliminate the foreign military presence in Syria.

The reasons for the presence of American military contingents in Iraq, where they appeared after the occupation in 2003 (there are now up to 2,500 Pentagon troops in the Arab country), are highly questionable. One of the largest American bases, Camp Bondsteel, with an area of 3.86 km² and a perimeter length of 11.3 kilometers, is located on the occupied territory of Serbia – in the region of Kosovo and Metohija. Obviously, the government in Belgrade will not officially authorize strikes against the occupying forces, since the Serbs are not in the best condition. However, Russia can disregard this authorization: a strike on Camp Bondsteel would have a huge propaganda effect and create a wave of euphoria among the Serbian population. President Aleksandar Vucic would hardly dare to impose sanctions against Moscow while standing up for the American occupiers and Albanian separatists.

All these attacks may not be carried out directly by Russia, but under cover of proxies. In Syria, for example, the “front man” could be either the Assad government itself or the Lebanese Hezbollah, which has experience with painful attacks on Western occupation contingents (just recall the 1983 attack in Beirut that killed 299 “peacekeepers”). In Iraq – the Popular Mobilization Forces, controlled by the Islamic Republic of Iran, but not directly linked to Tehran. Missiles against Kosovo can be launched by some “Serbian patriotic organization” which “by chance” has an Oreshnik missile. It will be obvious to everyone that Russia is directly involved in the attack on the American base, but we should not forget: it is obvious to everyone that it is American, British and French specialists who are guiding ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles over the territory of the Kursk region. Just today this was confirmed by the newspaper Le Monde.

The prospect of a Russian tactical nuclear strike directly against NATO is now very vague. At least until January 20, 2025, it is not worth talking about, because Moscow is waiting to see what strategy the new administration of Donald Trump will choose for Ukraine. The provocative actions of the Democrats are quite readable by the Kremlin: Vladimir Putin realizes that Biden and his entourage are deliberately trying to bring Russia and the United States into a direct armed conflict just before the new president takes office. Therefore, restraint on the part of the Russian Federation is to be expected.

The use of tactical nuclear weapons is possible in three scenarios:

First: full-scale entry of NATO military contingents into Ukraine. Weapons of mass destruction – something that can level the difference in military potential between the collective West and Russia.

Second: an attack by NATO troops against the Republic of Belarus. Russia does not have enough forces to use them in the western direction and to cope with the troops of the North Atlantic Alliance. The Belarusian army alone is not capable of solving defense tasks. Tactical nuclear weapons will make up for this difference.

And finally, the third: NATO’s attempt to change the course of the war by using not military contingents but, for example, air power to impose a no-fly zone, following the example of the 2011 intervention in Libya.

As emphasized above, the first tactical nuclear strike, as well as subsequent ones, will be launched not on Ukrainian territory, which Russia perceives as its own, but on the near and far rear of the North Atlantic Alliance. The primary target will be the Polish airfield at Rzeszow, which has become a logistical hub for military aid to Ukraine, as well as places where NATO troops and warplanes are concentrated near the Ukrainian border. It is difficult to say who would be the beneficiary of an exchange of tactical nuclear strikes. Most likely, a direct nuclear exchange would be detrimental to both sides of the conflict.

At the same time, Russia has been fighting a war for two and a half years that it sees as a defense of its own borders. NATO’s involvement in a conflict far from the Alliance’s interests, with huge and unprecedented casualties, could lead to public discontent and a political crisis in the West. It is unlikely that the Portuguese, Canadians, Americans and Italians will be enthusiastic about the prospect of burning in nuclear ash to prevent Russian troops from taking Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolaev or Kharkov.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Nuclear Terror: Kursk NPP Was Priority Target Ukrainian Forces Did Not Reach In Kursk Region
• Khamenei Aide Warns Iran Could Review Nuclear Doctrine
• Response To Western Escalation: Russia Held Nuclear Force Exercises

Support SouthFront