START Stopped: The West should be mindful of what might trigger Russia

The Russian President clarified that Moscow was not withdrawing from the treatMoscow was not withdrawing from the treaty y and subsequently said that the ceilings on warheads and delivery systems would be honoured.

Experts say Putin’s argument seems to be that as the west seeks Russia’s defeat, it makes no sense to provide US inspectors access to its nuclear sites.
Moreover, there is fear that the information the American inspection team gathers from their visit to Russia could be passed on to Ukraine and help them target the nuclear weapons sites.

Moscow’s apprehensions are not baseless as in the past information supplied by the US had allowed Ukrainian drones to attack Russian bases.
Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine there has been a near-constant debate about Putin’s nuclear arsenal and whether he might use them in the conflict.

The United States has repeatedly warned that Russia might use nuclear weapons. The Kremlin on its part has maintained its ambiguity on the issue, ensuring that the nuclear debate remains on the table. This has even led China, a close ally of Russia, to publicly state that nuclear weapons should never be used.

But in December, on return from his first visit to Beijing, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had said in an interview that the risk of nuclear weapons being used in the Ukraine conflict has lessened for the time being.
The Russian President had made it clear that he would use nuclear weapons only in retaliation. He had said that under no circumstances would Russia be the first to use nuclear weapons.

“We have not gone mad, we are aware of what nuclear weapons are,” Putin said. He added, “We aren’t about to run around the world brandishing this weapon like a razor.”

Experts point out that political leaders in all nuclear-armed states have to balance two competing imperatives — ensuring that their weapons can never be used without proper authorisation, while at the same time also ensuring that the weapons are kept in a state of constant readiness.
Often this dilemma is solved by designing a command and control system that regulates nuclear decision-making.

In the United States, the President can order nuclear strikes without any oversight. But in Russia, though the President can order the use of the weapons, he needs the consent of other key officials before the military can follow through on any nuclear command.

These checks and balances that were handed down from the time of the Soviet Union were meant to ensure that no single person, be it the Communist Party leader, could unleash nuclear war. It also prevented the military from ordering nuclear strikes on their own.

Russian nuclear doctrine makes it clear that nuclear weapons would be used only when a conflict threatens Russia’s very existence.

Putin has made it clear that Ukraine is not a conflict where Russia would use nuclear weapons as it is confident of winning the war with conventional arms.

However, Russia is increasingly facing a Ukrainian army that is better equipped than what Moscow anticipated earlier because of significant western arms transfer — which is being scaled up steadily.

There are now rising concerns about what happens if Russian losses mount significantly in the coming days and Ukraine, with the NATO-supplied weapons, manages a successful campaign in Crimea.

Despite rising political rhetoric, western countries have thus far trodden a fine line in supplying Ukraine with substantial capabilities yet refraining from providing battle systems that are certain to provoke a direct confrontation with Moscow..

But experts point out that as Ukraine advances and gains more territory, western policymakers should try to understand where Russia’s redlines are.

“Otherwise, it may well be that they discover Moscow’s thresholds only after they have been crossed,” an expert warned.

This certainly would be a situation that all the contending parties would like to avoid at all costs.