Putting nuclear weapons to use risks escalation, impossible to control and potentially catastrophic | Diana Magnay

Published

3 years ago

October 7, 2022

admin

The US president is hardly unique in saying the risk of a nuclear “Armageddon” is higher now than it has been since the Cuban missile crisis – or as it is known in Russia, the Caribbean crisis.

Anyone who has thought for more than five seconds about Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats given the geopolitical state of play would conclude the same and indeed, it is a staple comment across Russian state TV.

And though the Russian president’s assertion that “this is not a bluff” is the kind of statement you make when you’re bluffing, Russia’s nuclear arsenal should be taken seriously. That is why it’s there.

Ukraine war live updates

Clearly, US officials are, which is why they have reportedly been making firm comments behind closed doors to their Russian counterparts that a nuclear strike is the worst of all possible ideas and that retaliation would be decisive.

At their core, the power of nuclear weapons lies in their ability to persuade the opposing party to do or not to do something, that is the very nature of deterrence.

Actually putting them to use in any capacity, tactical or strategic, has undeterminable benefits and escalation risks which are in all likelihood impossible to control and potentially catastrophic for all concerned.

At a very basic level, the wind might blow in Russia’s direction, Vladimir Putin would lose his friends in China and India, and a Western conventional retaliatory strike might knock out Russian infrastructure President Putin needs to keep his country going and his people on side.

The question is whether Vladimir Putin, who celebrates his 70th birthday this Friday, is thinking rationally about any of that.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine allows for a first-strike nuclear attack only if the very existence of the state is deemed at risk. It is a high bar. Ukraine has already struck targets in illegally annexed Crimea and in the Russian border town of Belgorod.

The Kremlin seems to have preferred not to make too big a deal out of it. Although this latest round of annexations means that Russia can claim these four territories of Eastern Ukraine as its own and therefore that any Ukrainian attack is a strike on the Russian state, it is a stretch to claim that as existential and a road that Russia has so far chosen not to travel.

Nor does Russia appear to have moved to take any of its nuclear warheads out of central storage and unite the payload with the means of delivery.

So far, its nuclear threats are just that – threats. There is still a long way to go in the way of signalling and warnings before we reach actual Armageddon.

And although Russia may be losing ground on the battlefield, it does still have other options beyond continuing to hammer it out in Donbas and Kherson.

Why hasn’t it taken out targets in Kyiv, for example, since the early days of the war? What about other forms of hybrid warfare (continuing to) target energy infrastructure in Ukraine and beyond? Vladimir Putin is a master of those dark arts. A nuclear strike, one would hope, would be his weapon of last resort.

The talk now in Russia is moving increasingly towards the Kremlin’s willingness to talk. The proposition seems to be – let’s discuss ending this now with Russia claiming a huge chunk of Eastern Ukraine as its own and there is the threat of tactical nuclear weapons if you don’t or if NATO troops get involved.

Ukraine’s president is understandably not convinced. Volodymyr Zelenskky wants his country back, whole. He is not the one thinking about potential off-ramps for Vladimir Putin, he’s thinking about winning.

Which is why it is so important that the US president is.

As Joe Biden put it in comments overheard by reporters, he’s trying to figure out where Mr Putin finds a way out where he “does not only lose face but lose significant power within Russia”.

The trouble is it is incredibly hard to determine what that is and by raising the rhetorical stakes, Vladimir Putin appears to be backing himself increasingly into a corner. The prospects are deeply worrying.

In an interview with Sky News, Russian lawmaker and TV host Evgeny Popov insisted Russia would never make the first strike.

“Using a nuclear weapon in the 21st century is an insane decision. We are not insane and we hope you are not either.”

Let’s hope Vladimir Putin feels the same.

World

What’s it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

Published

9 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

What's it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

What’s it like on the streets of DC right now, as thousands of federal police patrol the streets?

Who is Steve Witkoff, the US envoy regularly meeting Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu to broker peace in Ukraine and Gaza?

And why is Californian Governor Gavin Newsom now tweeting like Donald Trump?

Martha Kelner and Mark Stone answer your questions.

If you’ve also got a question you’d like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.

You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.

World

It’s been a confusing week – and Trump’s been made to look weak

Published

9 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

It’s been a confusing week.

The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine’s president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant.

Ukraine latest: Trump changes tack

The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.

The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.

Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it.

Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.

Russia gives two fingers to the president

And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.

“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.

Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.

It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.

The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.

Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.

It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.

NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.

European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”

The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.

Would Trump threaten force?

The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.

The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iran isn’t a nuclear power.

Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.

Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.

A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.

Image and reality don’t seem to match

Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.

He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.

That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.

The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.

World

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

Published

9 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.

Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.

Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.

Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.

Who are FARC, and are they still active?

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.

It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.

In 2016, after more than 50 years of civil war, FARC rebels and the Colombian government signed a peace deal.

It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.

According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.

Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.

It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.

The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.