Russia’s May 9 “victory” parade in Moscow passed by relatively excitement-free, probably because of the weather and the fact that Vladimir Putin didn’t make any more outrageous propaganda announcements beyond the ones he’s already made. It was feared that he might “officially” declare war on Ukraine, as if that isn’t what he’s already engaged in; but this would mean total “mobilization” of the country on a war footing.
Of course there are reasons why Putin might not want to do this: the possibility that NATO might become directly involved to oppose actions that further the level of war crimes already being committed, or further sanctions that are on the level of total economic warfare—and also perhaps the threat of an increase in the murmurings of discontent by a population that might begin to question the “whys” of it all. Perhaps more pointedly, because the country’s faltering economy simply can’t afford it.
Meanwhile, the threat of Putin using nuclear weapons may or may not be taken seriously, but a few of his colleagues seem to enjoy bragging about Russia’ capabilities in that regard, which might bring back memories for people who were around in the immediate postwar world. When I started school, it was long past the “duck and cover” drills period that those people would be familiar with…
…as if that was going protect anyone from the effects of nuclear fallout. There were films that exposed the danger of nuclear weapons getting into the hands of psychopaths (Dr. Strangelove), or being launched by computer glitches (Fail Safe, predating 1983’s WarGames). The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, in which JFK “stared down” Nikita Krushchev, was the “closest” to nuclear combat since the bomb drops on Japan, and exposes the irresponsible talk coming out of Russia at the moment.
The 1962 crisis evolved from a plan for a full-scale invasion of Cuba proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was initially opposed by the Kennedy administration since it would likely provoke a like response by the Soviets in Europe. But when negotiations broke down a blockade of Cuba was enforced, and when that seemed to be failing to persuade Krushchev to remove the nuclear missiles in Cuba, plans were made to launch air strikes against the missile sites.
The potential for some level of nuclear war was there: Cuba in fact had tactical nuclear weapons supplied by the Soviets that U.S. intelligence was apparently unaware of, and in his contacts with Krushchev, Fidel Castro threatened to use them against a U.S. invasion even if it meant the destruction of his own country. Another threat was the depth-charge attack on the Soviet submarine B-59, which was armed with a 15-kiloton nuclear torpedo, which came within a whisker of being launched when those on board thought a “war” had already started.
In the end, Krushchev agreed to an “exchange” in which the U.S. agreed to remove outdated nuclear weapons from Turkey and Italy; in reality, Krushchev had become fearful that he could not control Castro or what he would do with the nuclear weapons, and eventually removed all of them from Cuba.
Over the decades there have been various “disarmament” agreements between the U.S. and the Soviet Union/Russia which purported to decrease the stock of weapons or to limit testing, although Russia has perhaps been about as trustworthy as North Korea in that regard. Other countries with limited capabilities have been allowed to build up their own stockpiles if they are deemed “responsible,” or if not, subject to sanctions to in an effort to prevent them from doing so (North Korea, Iran).
But now we are hearing Russian leaders, beginning with Putin, threatening nuclear “retaliation” if their unlawful and unjustified invasion of Ukraine is “interfered” with. In fact at least one Russian in a leadership positions is, if anything, even more irresponsible in his threats of nuclear war than Putin. This would be the director general of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, who was quoted Sunday of boasting that "NATO countries will be destroyed by Russia in half-an-hour" by Russia’s “more reliable rockets” and anyone who doubts this is “suffering from Alzheimer’s disease."
Before anyone could accuse him of being “erratic”—well, once he opened his mouth he was accused of it anyways—Rogozin added that nuclear war "cannot be allowed because the consequences will impact the (entire) Earth." He must have seen Dr. Strangelove, because that is what the Russian ambassador in the film warned would happen if the “doomsday device” was triggered. But then again, Rogozin has been a frequent sight in the presence of Putin, and he must know Putin’s thinking better than most on the subject, if only because he shares Putin’s “fascination” with the creative uses of the “bomb.”
Phillips O’Brien, Professor of Strategic Studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, tweeted that Putin’s “victory” speech suggests that he is running “out of ideas” on how to deal with Ukrainian and international resistance—short of mass mobilization, or the nuclear “option.” Just how serious must this threat be taken? It certainly depends on Putin’s mental state, which some have suggested is in the beginnings of dementia if not plain psychopathy, or if there are some in his inner circle willing to stop him.
After all, we are talking about a man who very likely was behind the 1999 "false flag" apartment bombings that helped create the "image" of Putin being a "savior" when public trust in him was at a low point; Putin has since shown himself to have little regard for human life, even that of his fellow Russians. Thus while in later years Castro would claim to feel “remorse” about wanting to use nuclear weapons in the event of a U.S. invasion of Cuba, that was in hindsight and not the “heat of the moment” in which anything is possible--and Putin should be regarded in that light as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment