On September 21, 2022, Vladimir Putin appeared in front of Russian state television cameras for the first time since announcing the “special military operation” called to eliminate the Ukrainian political regime in ten days. Seven months after the start of a full-scale invasion, Russian troops they had to withdraw from Sumy and Kharkiv regions and they had just been expelled from the north of Khersonlosing the only provincial capital that remained in their hands.
In his speech, the autocrat announced a mobilisation of 300,000 additional men and accused the NATOwithout any basis, to propose a “Nuclear blackmail” against Russia. “We have better and more modern weapons… and we will not hesitate to use them.” “This is not a bluff,” Putin said in a threatening tone. The referendums on the annexation of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia were already prepared, as was the appointment of Sergei Surovikin, nicknamed “General Armageddon“, as head of the Russian army in Ukraine.
Of course, this was not the first time that Russia had used the nuclear scarecrow. It had been doing so since the beginning of the war, to scare the Western powers and keep them from collaborating with Ukraine. This time, the threat seemed different: the American president, Joe Biden warns of ‘apocalypse’ if Russia decided to use nuclear weapons; European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell announced that if Russia took this step, the West would respond by annihilating the entire Russian army deployed in Ukraine with a conventional attack. Even NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed similar views.
Everyone took Putin’s words as a different challenge to the previous ones and now we know why. At a conference with the head of the British secret service, the legendary MI6William Burns, director of the INC.acknowledged on Monday that they had first-hand information about a possible attack with tactical nuclear weapons by Russia in eastern Ukraine. He even discussed the issue with Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Russian International Intelligence Service.
The contemporary “missile crisis”
Those days in September and October, according to Burns’ testimony, must have been very similar to those of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Probably, as on that occasion, We never really realized the danger humanity was in.It is true that Russia did not threaten to use strategic nuclear weapons but tactical weapons, shorter range and designed for very specific operations on the front, but the response would have involved an escalation that is better not imagined.
What is clear, even if the CIA does not openly acknowledge it, is that public statements and joint actions of top Western leaders, as well as direct deterrence in private conversations, This made Russia forget about this option.The gains, in any case, were going to be minimal compared to the damage his army could suffer and the repercussions it could have on the rest of the planet.
Likewise, it is very likely that the plausibility of this threat has partly changed the Biden administration’s position on aid to Ukraine. Zelensky has long demanded ATACMS missiles medium and long-range, F16 fighter jets and Patriot air defense batteries. The position of National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, followed by the US President himself, meant that the anti-aircraft batteries would arrive only by the end of April 2023; the missiles will be delivered only in October of the same year, and the fighters will have flown over Ukrainian skies only this summer, after a very long period of authorizations and pilot training.
Undoubtedly, the absence of all this material, which could have been months in advance, condemned the appeal to failure. “Summer counteroffensive” of Ukraine in 2023. An attempt to repeat what was achieved a year earlier, but without resources, without air protection and with the American press telegraphing every goal and strategy through Pentagon leaks. The benefits were not as minimal as advertised, but they fell short of the State Department’s exaggerated expectations.
Russian nuclear weapons.
Reuters
Threat as propaganda
Two years later, Burns insists that Nuclear threats will persist as long as Putin remains in power and as long as he wants to continue to set the Western military agenda. It has not gone badly. The United States continues not to allow Ukraine to defend itself on Russian territory with the weapons sent, and from kyiv one does not feel that there is a real will on the part of Russia to lose the war, for fear of its reaction. They believe that it is enough for the West that this continues indefinitely and that Putin’s army is exhausted.
The CIA director, aware of this situation, warned against the temptation to believe every threat literally. For him, this is another propaganda method that does not hide any real intention behind it, a position shared by his British counterpart, Richard Moore. However, especially on the part of the United States, caution remains: neither Biden dares to authorize attacks on military targets in Russia, nor Harris wants to engage in them during the campaign, and even less is Trump ready to upset his admired Vladimir Putin.
Given these circumstances, Ukraine seems forced to manufacture its own weapons and use it as you see fit. Something similar to what he did with the offensive on the Kursk region, which was not even consulted by his allies. The shortage of ammunition and soldiers has long been known and makes the battle on the Eastern Front very difficult, where the Russians continue to follow the line from Pokrovsk to Vuhledar. For now, it must be said, with mixed success.
Ukraine bombed Crimea, sent its missiles across the border into Russia, and even entered its territory without Armageddon breaking out. Every red line drawn by Moscow has been crossed at one point or another. It seems clear that the threat of September 2022 was indeed a bluff. The risk of finding out, yes, is something that no one dares to fully take. And least of all Biden himself.
