What measures could the West take if there was a nuclear strike and what would it mean for Putin?
Speculation over whether or not Vladimir Putin will use nuclear weapons has been rife and the consequences could be disastrous for the West and the Russian president
With Russia’s invasion stalling and the Ukrainian attack on the Kerch Bridge have both contributed to increased concern Putin could escalate from conventional weapons to a tactical nuclear strike.
The US President Joe Biden said last week that the world was the closest it had been to “Armageddon” at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis, after more sabre rattling from the Kremlin.
NATO says that such a move would probably lead to a “physical response” from Ukraine, her allies and even NATO itself.
It said any use of nuclear weapons would have “unprecedented consequences” and that Moscow was using its nuclear threats mainly to deter NATO and other countries from intervening directly in Ukraine.
What measures could the West take if Putin goes nuclear?
Former Ukrainian defence minister, Andriy Zagorodnyuk, has said that NATO has several options should Putin make a “terrible” decision.
Writing in Foreign Affairs he said: “It might not even need a land operation, the Western coalition could credibly tell the Kremlin that it would hit Russian capabilities with direct missile strikes and airstrikes, destroying its military facilities and disabling its Black Sea fleet.
“It could threaten to cut all its communications with electronic warfare and arrange a cyber-blackout against the entire Russian military.”
He added that “breaking the nuclear taboo” could also provoke repercussions from China and India, which would be another blow to the Kremlin.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
General David Petraeus says if Vladimir Putin uses tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield, that will put Russia in a worse position.
Is the West doing anything to deter a nuclear attack?
Professor Michael Clarke, former director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, said the Kremlin had already been warned about the consequences of escalation.
He said: “When the tactical nuclear weapon threats were raised a few weeks ago, the US and three or four NATO members personally contacted their counterparts in Russia and in the Russian general staff to say ‘don’t even think about it’.
“They won’t tell us what they said and nor should they because there has got to be some uncertainty about this in order to maintain a deterrent but what they seem to have said is first of all ‘we will not be passive’.
“Second, we won’t go nuclear, but we will go conventional, and we have the conventional power to hit all of your nuclear infrastructure and facilities. If we even think that you’re going nuclear, if we see the preparations start – we might attack you’.
“That seems to have been the message.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told Sky News that NATO will carry out annual nuclear exercises to show readiness.
Should the West be doing more now?
Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has said Russia’s latest missile attacks in Ukraine were “a sad reminder that the most horrific pages of this ugly war are still ahead of us”.
The “Kremlin’s response is becoming ever more erratic disproportionate and destructive,” he said.
Discussing Russia’s reaction to the blast on Kerch Bridge – a key route from Russia to Crimea – Mr Gabuev said this showed Russia “still has a vast toolkit for escalation”.
He said: “Given the high stakes and emotions, the window for diplomacy is likely to open at the most dramatic moment: for example, when Putin starts to unpack his nuclear toolkit, which will be visible to NATO and involve a lot of signalling by Moscow.
“Only then might the Ukrainian and western publics be convinced there is an urgent need to negotiate.”
He added that negotiations would have to involve President Biden “since the Kremlin considers him the only real head of the opposing coalition” and the sooner they started, the better.
What do the Ukrainian people think?
A nuclear attack wouldn’t change anything about the Ukrainian people’s resolve to fight, a Ukrainian MP has claimed.
The Ukrainian MP Yelyzaveta Yasko told Kay Burley: “Putin doesn’t have any logic any more. It’s not possible to justify Putin any more.
“We understand that he’s in his final battle of his life where he wants to prove to all the world that he can do whatever he wants, including taking land, killing thousands of people, destroying infrastructure, and we understand that nuclear threat and a strike is very possible, but it’s not going to change a lot on the scene of Ukraine.
“Of course, it’s a disaster. It’s catastrophic for me. It’s a big tragedy to see thousands of people being killed, wounded, destroyed lives.
“But it’s not going to change the rule of Ukrainian people to restore justice and to restore our territorial sovereignty.”
Read more
Attack on NATO energy supplies would provoke ‘united and determined response’, alliance chief vows
Opinions divided in Moscow after Kremlin’s escalation in Ukraine
Why the West should stop sounding so worried about a nuclear attack
Ian Bond, from the Centre for European Reform, says the West needs to stop being – and sounding – afraid of a nuclear attack.
He told the Doomsday Watch podcast: “Nothing is as provocative to Putin as weakness, so the more the West says ‘We are afraid that Russia might use nuclear weapons’, the more likely that Putin is to continue making the threat of using nuclear weapons – and perhaps even use one or two to demonstrate he really means it.”
Bond says the message to Russia, which could be delivered privately, should be: “Please understand that if you go nuclear, we will regard the gloves as being off.”
While accepting that no one could “absolutely rule out” Russia using nuclear weapons, he added: “We should stop frightening ourselves with the Bogeyman that if the Ukrainians drive the Russians out, the Russians are going to go nuclear, I just don’t buy that.”
Sara Sharif’s father – who is accused of her murder – has told jurors he “takes full responsibility” for the death of his daughter.
Minicab driver Urfan Sharif, 42, called police in the early hours of 10 August last year saying he had beaten her “too much” for being “naughty”, the court previously heard.
The 10-year-old’s body was found in a bunkbed at the family home in Woking, Surrey, with dozens of injuries, including bruises, burns, broken bones and bite marks, after he and the rest of the family had fled to Pakistan.
Sharif is on trial alongside Sara’s stepmother Beinash Batool, 30, and uncle Faisal Malik, 29, at the Old Bailey in central London.
They all deny murder and an alternative charge of causing or allowing her death.
Sharif said he had initially taken responsibility to save his family, but giving evidence in court blamed his wife for killing his daughter, saying he was out working when she was abused.
He told jurors on Wednesday: “I accept every single thing.”
He made the admission under cross-examination from Batool’s barrister Caroline Carberry KC as his wife sobbed in the dock.
Urfan Sharif, Beinash Batool and Faisal Malik. Pics: Surrey Police
Ms Carberry asked him about a handwritten note left next to his daughter’s body in which he wrote: “Love you Sara.
“Whoever see this note it’s me Urfan Sharif who killed my daughter by beating. I am running away because I am scared but I promise that I will hand over myself and take punishment.”
Read more from Sky News:
Actor Timothy West dies
Full list of possible Post Office closures
Ms Carberry asked if he did kill his daughter by beating and Sharif replied: “Yes, she died because of me.”
She suggested: “In the weeks before she died she suffered multiple fractures to her body, didn’t she, and it was you who inflicted those injuries?”
“Yes,” Sharif replied, before accepting causing Sara’s injuries apart from the burn and bite marks.
“I take responsibility. I take full responsibility,” he said, admitting to causing at least 25 fractures by hitting Sara with a cricket bat or pole and breaking her hyoid neck bone.
Ms Carberry said: “I suggest on the night of the 6 August you badly beat Sara.”
Speaking barely above a whisper in the witness box, Sharif replied: “I accept everything.”
The note left by Sara’s father. Pic: Surrey Police
After a short break, Ms Carberry asked: “Do you accept that you killed her by beating her? Do you accept you had been beating Sara severely over a number of weeks?
“Do you accept using the cricket bat to beat her? Do you accept using the cricket bat as a weapon on her on a number of occasions? Do you accept that you used that cricket bat on her with force?”
Sharif replied: “Yes ma’am.”
He also agreed when asked if he hit her intending to cause Sara “really serious harm” – the legal definition of murder.
Ms Carberry said: “You have pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder. Would you like that charge to be put to you again?”
Sharif replied: “Yeah,” but following a break the cross-examination continued as he insisted: “I didn’t intend to kill her.”
The barrister suggested: “When you confirmed earlier today you beat her to death and you intended to cause her really serious harm that was an admission to the offence of murder.”
Sharif said: “I did not want to hurt her. I didn’t want to harm her.”
Ms Carberry asked: “Do you accept that your beating of her caused her death?”
“Yes,” said Sharif.
But this time he answered “no” when she asked him: “Do you accept by beating her in the way that you did you intended to cause her really serious harm?”
The trial continues.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has ordered his department to carry out a review of the costs of potentially changing the law to legalise assisted dying.
Mr Streeting, who intends to vote against a landmark bill on the issue, has warned that a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services if it is implemented.
It comes as MPs weigh up whether to vote for a change in the law when given the opportunity to do so later this month.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would give terminally ill people with six months to live the choice to end their lives.
There has been much debate about the bill since its details were published on Monday evening, including that the medicine that will end a patient’s life will need to be self-administered and that people must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months.
Politics latest: Farage mocked over ‘rare’ PMQs appearance after US trips to back Trump
Ms Leadbeater, who has the support of former government minister Lord Falconer and ChildLine founder Dame Esther Rantzen, believes her proposed legislation is the “most robust” in the world and contains safeguards she hopes will “reassure” those who are on the fence.
They include that two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and that a High Court judge must give their approval.
The Labour MP has argued the fact terminally ill patients will have to make the choice themselves and administer the drugs themselves “creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
MP discusses End of Life Bill
However, several cabinet ministers – including Mr Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who would be responsible for the new law – have spoken out against the legislation.
Announcing the review, Mr Streeting said: “Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward, because I’m very clear that regardless of my own personal position or my own vote, my department and the whole government will respect the will of parliament if people vote for assisted dying.”
While the health secretary has warned of the potential cost downsides for the NHS, his critics have pointed out there may be potential savings to be made if patients need less care because they choose to end their own lives – something Mr Streeting branded a “chilling slippery slope argument”.
“I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money – whether that’s relatives or the NHS,” he said.
“And I think that’s one of the issues that MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘Impossible’ for assisted bill to be safe
“But this is a free vote – the government’s position is neutral.”
Speaking to reporters after delivering a speech to the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Mr Streeting said there were “choices and trade-offs” and that “any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities”.
“That doesn’t mean people should vote against it on that basis,” he said.
“People need to weigh up this choice in the way that we’re weighing up all these other choices at the moment.”
Read more:
Why is assisted dying controversial – and where is it legal?
Cancelled pay rises for managers among proposed NHS reforms
MPs will debate and vote on Ms Leadbeater’s Private Member’s Bill on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015.
The government has given MPs a “free vote” on the issue, meaning they will be able to vote according to their conscience and without the pressure to conform to party lines.
In 2015, a bill by former Labour MP Rob Marris that would have made it legal for the terminally ill to end their lives was defeated in the Commons by 330 votes to 118.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway