Tag Archives: Putin

Putin Rattles the World with Upgraded ICBM

1 Reply

An article by Bloomberg and reposted by MSN reports the launch of Russia’s new Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the northern Arkhangelsk Oblast. Putin is quoted in the Bloomberg piece as saying-

“this unique weapon will strengthen the military potential of our armed forces, will reliably guarantee Russia’s security against outside threats and force those, who in the heat of frenzied aggressive rhetoric try to threaten our country, to think again.”

Can we take it that the stated uniqueness of this weapon is related to it’s ability to evade whatever antiballistic missile capability the west may have? Or perhaps Sarmat may have greater range or more numerous and more accurate MIRVs? Whatever the case may be, Putin is ratcheting up the tension and uncertainty with regard to his dedication to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), making us wonder about his unleashing a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

There has been much speculation on what could trigger Putin’s use of tactical nuclear weapons. Informed opinion can be found in The Congressional Research Office document, updated in March of 2022, titled “Russia’s Nuclear Weapons: Doctrine, Forces, and Modernization.”

This document states that in a 2018 speech to the Federal Assembly, Putin said-

“I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific. As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever.”

“There is no provision for a preventive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a retaliatory reciprocal counter strike. This means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory [with nuclear weapons]…. Only when we know for certain—and this takes a few seconds to understand—that Russia is being attacked will we deliver a counterstrike…. Of course, this amounts to a global catastrophe, but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a preventive strike.”

While Putin says that Russia cannot be the initiators of a catastrophe, which could be taken as a nuclear exchange, Russia does reserve the right to a nuclear response to the use of conventional weapons that threaten the existence of the state. This suggests that a first use of nuclear weapons is possible by Russia. So, what circumstance would Russia have to be presented with to view a threat as existential? The death of Putin or the collapse of his government? A NATO invasion rolling onto Russian soil? Moscow surrounded by NATO tanks? Or just a moment of panic by Putin? One thing seems certain- Putin will be the judge of what is existential.

Elsewhere in the report it is stated that “… several [US] analysts have argued that Russia has adopted an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine. They contend that when faced with the likelihood of defeat in a military conflict with NATO, Russia might threaten to use nuclear weapons in an effort to coerce NATO members to withdraw from the battlefield.”

This escalate to de-escalate idea from 2018 looks familiar. Maybe this is what Putin is doing now.

A summary of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review: John R. Harvey, Franklin C. Miller, Keith B. Payne, and Bradley H. Roberts, “Continuity and Change U.S. Nuclear Policy,” RealClear Defense, February 7, 2018. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/02/07/continuity_and_change_in_us_nuclear_policy_113025.html

[‘

Lavrov Speaks

2 Replies

According to an article published in Newsweek and reposted by MSN, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly said-

“”Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the U.S. and its Western subjects on the world stage,” Lavrov told Rossiya 24, according to a translation from Russian state-run media outlet RT.”

The purpose behind Putin’s “special military operation” seems to be shifting a bit. Originally it was meant perform the “denazification” of Ukraine. Now Lavrov is saying that the purpose is to stop domination of the US and NATO in the world. To its dismay, Russia has embarrassed itself by the poor performance of its military and its equipment so it is trying to distract observers from its bloody nose by posturing itself to be against a more global threat.

Putin is hypersensitive to sharing a border with a NATO country. As this is being written, there are reports of Russian military equipment moving towards the border with Finland. Earlier, the Kremlin sternly warned Sweden and Finland against joining NATO.

Outwardly, Putin acts like he thinks that NATO is an active threat to Russian territory. What he really thinks will probably never be known for sure, but he definitely seems to be afraid of the influence of western culture and openness on Russia. What many observers suggest is that Putin was horrified and deeply embarrassed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and he seeks to reclaim what he believes was its power and respect in the world.

A common theme in Russian media is that America is a failed empire and its global influence has gone too far for too long. They point to the cultural and political disorder in America and to instability in its governance. All the while, we keep shoveling coal into that fire. Russian media pays great attention to Fox News personalities like Tucker Carlson because of his sharp criticism of the actions of the US and NATO in the war in Ukraine. Now is the time for Carlson to stop aiding the other side with his fratricidal talk. Carlson’s handlers need to step up and do the right thing. Lachlan and Rupert Murdoch should be feeling some heat over this.

America is already in a very real war with both Russia and China over democracy vs autocracy. Both countries seek to knock America from its position of influence in the world. China is perhaps a bit more patient than Russia. The irony is that we may knock ourselves out of this position.

Russia’s Dark Future

1 Reply

For you Russophiles out there, Nina L. Khrushcheva, great-grand daughter of Nikita Khrushchev, has written a short essay on how Putin’s war might play out. In an earlier essay, she asks the question-

“Stalinism didn’t die until Stalin did. The same was true of Maoism. Will it be true of Putinism as well?“

Like others, Khrushcheva makes a case for Putin’s desire to establish an “Orthodox Christian kingdom of Rus”. These are interesting but very dangerous times.

Assorted Thoughts on our New Nuclear Age

Leave a reply

If you search Google News for ‘nuclear war’, you’ll find links to articles from a large variety of sources. Putin’s invasion and belligerent behavior has resulted in a great deal of media buzz which is rightfully spooking the world. Better relations with Russia began with the fall of the Soviet Union and has lasted to some degree up to now- about 30 years duration.

Along with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has been making threats suggesting to some that we may be heading back to a world of nuclear brinksmanship. Nuclear sabre rattling largely disappeared sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union. For the past 30 years the world has carried on as though nuclear weapons don’t exist anymore. Everyone knows that the major powers have nuclear weapons and understands the rationale for Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This has been in the background. Yes, there are outliers like North Korea and Iran.

Ronald Reagan took exception to the logic of MAD and in 1983 announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), sometimes derided by the name “Star Wars”. Reagan promoted the plan by asserting that orbiting SDI platforms would make nuclear weapons obsolete, at least with strategic weapons like the ICBM. It was a grand plan to make the world safer. It certainly made the world safer for defense contractors. Many of us think that the program was really meant cause the Soviets to go bankrupt in trying to keep up with the west in SDI technology. After the Soviet Union collapsed, enthusiasm for SDI in its original form faded away. You can read about it in the SDI link.

With Putin, steel must be met with steel. He only respects strength. For this reason it may have been a mistake to announce that there would not be a no-fly zone enacted over Ukraine. Handing over certainty to Putin only emboldens him. We should have said that it is on the table and left him guessing.

The big question is what to do if, in desperation, Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine? How should NATO respond? Whatever it is, there must be an unambiguous response. The choice for Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon will only be difficult the first time it is used.

On the lighter side, if you don’t already know, now may be a good time to familiarize yourselves with nuclear weapons effects and how the bombs work. If you’re in Vegas, stop by the National Atomic Testing museum. Get familiar with mankind’s fastest and most spectacular expressway to the collapse of civilization! Remember, nuclear explosions are effectively point sources of heat and pressure. The effects fall off as an inverse square law with distance. Distance is your friend.

On the personal level, try to come to terms with the stochastic nature of radiation damage and the existence and effects of background radiation. The dose/response curve to radiation gets quite fuzzy at the lower dose levels. Remember, exposure and dose are not the same.

The tragic effects of this invasion on the Ukrainian people is horrible. But I have Russian friends and have been to Russia. I grieve for the Russian people who are unwittingly on this dreadful misadventure of Putin’s. During the last 30 years of relative peace Russians have known a much improved quality of life. It is awful to see this ripped away from them. Russia just can’t shake itself free of despotic leadership.

David Brooks has an insightful article on Putin’s view of the world and Russia’s place in it. An excellent interview can be found in Der Spiegel describing Putin’s character by Ivan Krastev from the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.

Hard and Soft Propaganda

Leave a reply

There is an interesting Op-Ed in the LA Times on the nature of propaganda and how it is used, written by Megan Hyska of Northwestern University. Putin’s recent exercises in the application of propaganda is used as an example. Persuasion isn’t always the goal. You’ll probably recognize that these techniques are used everywhere. I won’t repeat any of it here, but it is worth a glance.

Will Russian Sanctions Work?

Leave a reply

It remains to be seen if the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the west will have even a smidgen of effect on Putin. Western sanctions on the USSR had substantial effect on the Soviet people back in the cold war days, but the leadership of the USSR lasted for a very long time in this condition. It is naive of us to think that it will be any different with the Putin regime. Look at Iran and North Korea. They have lived under extreme sanctions for a very long time while under the tight control of their leadership and even have developed or will develop nuclear weapons.

One difference today in Russia is the relatively large middle class. They are accustomed to a lifestyle where goods and services are abundant. The smack down of the Russian economy will adversely affect them. But will it make a difference in Putin’s autocratic behavior? In the past, Putin’s response to dissent has been to crack down using the police and security services to enforce draconian law. Putin does not report to the Russian people. Like the old story of boiling the frog, he has cannily built a tight power structure around himself over time.

Will pinching the finances of the oligarchs make the difference? There is already talk of them turning to block chain schemes to park their money. Sanctions mean that money will begin to flow elsewhere. It seems doubtful that Putin would have allowed this kind of Achilles Heel of a powerful class to exist. Some think that the oligarchs report to Putin and not the other way around.

One beneficiary of this situation is thought to be China. It surely hasn’t gone unnoticed in China that the disconnection of western business will provide a great many business opportunities in Russia as well as an expansion of their sphere of influence. All we can do is to watch it unfold.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will bring negatives to his regime. Whether it will bring him down seems unlikely. Historical precedence does not give much hope to the idea that Putin will have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment and cause him to relent.

Russia’s status as a nuclear power worries everyone, of course. Adherence to the strategic doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) between nuclear states has limited warfare to the use of conventional arms for generations. It has been the doctrine of the US to incorporate a fire break between the use of conventional and nuclear arms. Whether this is true for Russia is unclear. They may see nuclear arms as part of a normal escalation in force. This would be most unfortunate if true. How the west would respond to the release of nuclear weapons in Ukraine or against other states of the former Soviet Union is also unclear, but there are surely contingency plans for this eventuality somewhere in the pentagon. I hope.

The unifying affect on the west in responding to Putin’s aggression is encouraging but it may not be enough to stop Putin from further invasions. Let us hope that this madman can be contained.

Donny and Vlad

1 Reply

Yet another mournful lamentation on Putin and Trump.

Yesterday, 2/22/22, Trump had words of praise for Putin’s move into Ukraine with “peace keeping” forces. He used the word “savvy” in his praise of the tactic. This is in addition to his spoken admiration of Putin in past years. But he also said that if he were in office this wouldn’t have happened. Trump’s acolyte, Tucker Carlson, seems to be issuing forth the same kind of spew. So, what is Trump really saying?

During Trump’s term he proved to be cool on NATO and America’s place in it. So much so that he spooked EU countries. By most accounts, he had little if any recognizable foreign policy and left a great many important posts unfilled in the State Department. Foreign affairs just didn’t capture his interest. Yet, he says he could have prevented Putin’s invasion if he hadn’t been cheated out of the presidency. I guess the invasion is maybe the fault of Biden supporters.

I have come think of Trump as a wannabe despot who admires Putin the despot (and others) as one professional may admire the work of another. Putin as leader is accustomed to having considerable control of Russia. Trump was in control of numerous private companies and thus not accountable to public shareholders. Both characters are used to the exercise of unquestioned power. Maybe it’s not surprising that there is mutual admiration.

Will Trump followers be disappointed by his open admiration of Putin? It seems doubtful. His supporters have an evangelical zeal for the man. A great many of his followers are conservative evangelical Christians who believe that Trump’s appearance on the scene meshes with their end-times theology. His appearance is related to the beginning of the apocalypse of prophesy. These supporters believe that the man is here due to supernatural forces that must play out and cannot be dissuaded.

If this is your belief, then it must be comforting for you. For the rest of us, it is an incoherent and destructive kind of nonsense. How can it be that the same religion that preaches love and gave us the Beatitudes would also give us a leader the likes of the ethically disabled Trump. Somehow the creator of the universe, the one who set the galaxies spinning and knows the movements of every flea in the tail feathers of every sparrow, gave us a malignant narcissist like Trump. It is not a question shrouded in religious mystery. It is what it appears to be- absurd. Ambitious and destructive characters like Putin and Trump have appeared regularly throughout history. And through the lens of history we can make some good guesses as to what they can do. Both are threats to democratic civilization in their own way and must be contained.

As to the original question, what did Trump mean by his comments, I don’t know. He makes things up as he goes and lies profusely. I don’t think that even he knows what he means.

US Russian Policy is Pathetic

6 Replies

I just have to say that in regard to the deteriorating situation with the Soviet Union Russian Federation, it does not appear that either the EU or the US have their best thinkers working on it. I think US leaders have misunderstood Putin from the beginning and I see very little to convince me that Obama’s people, the Congress, or any other high level functionaries known to me have a clue how to get their arms around Russian behavior or a workable diplomacy.

Certainly recent (post-Ford) US incursions into foreign lands with troops or drones have taken us off the moral high ground in this regard. How can the US lecture Russia on the invasion of Crimea when we invaded Iraq based on lies, subterfuge, and outright errors?

Bush 43 and Clinton had historical opportunities to gain better alliance with Russia. But we supported Yeltsin in the Clinton years and ignored Putin’s offers of assistance after 9/11. The Russian people were mystified when the US supported Yeltsin, widely regarded as a drunken buffoon. Gorbachev’s memoirs paint a lackluster and untrustworthy picture of Yeltsin.  And the US has done nothing but confirm Putin’s paranoia about US intentions by adding membership to NATO, ABM’s in Poland, petroleum wars in the middle east, and the general appearance of weakness by in-house political fratricide.

We have no use for milquetoast administrations like Obama’s, nor do we need rabid swingin’ dicks like John McCain or his hawkish brethren. We do need Russian and Slavic scholars who speak the language and understand the history of Russia at least back to Peter the Great. They can be immigrants from former Soviet territories of the ilk of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, or even a world savvy guy like Henry Kissinger. Who are the current brain trust for eastern European politics and is the CIA giving them good intelligence? Did the CIA predict the takeover of Crimea?