When Russian 2021 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dmitry Muratov warns of his country’s imminent use of nuclear weapons in an interview with the BBC, many in the West will at least have a tinge of horror – followed by the thought: let’s not provoke Vladimir Putin much with further military aid to Ukraine.
That’s exactly what the Russian President wants us to believe – although Muratov is anything but a Putin supporter: the independent newspaper “Novaya Gazeta” he founded and publishes has been shut down by the Kremlin.
Muratov told BBC Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg: “Two generations have lived without the threat of nuclear war. But that time is over. Will Putin push the nuclear button or not? Who knows? Nobody knows that.”
He went on to point out how Russian “state propaganda” prepares people to believe that nuclear war is not a bad thing. The television stations here advertise nuclear war and nuclear weapons as if they were advertising pet food. . . so that the people here are ready.’
Russian television programs on the war in Ukraine are indeed full of pundits almost gushing at the prospect of “destroying” Britain with nuclear strikes in retaliation for our steadfast military support of the Ukrainians – against a studio backdrop of mushroom clouds over London.
Then, last week, Putin announced that Russia would build a tactical nuclear weapons facility in Belarus, accompanied by a warning from that ally’s president, Alexander Lukashenko, that if Russia felt its survival was, by the way, threatened how the West is smuggling weapons into Ukraine, Moscow could “use the most terrible weapon”.
That these comments followed Putin’s warning that Russia would “act accordingly” after the UK announced it would be supplying Kiev with Challenger 2 anti-tank shells containing depleted uranium has led some to believe that London is carrying a dangerous nuclear missile provoked escalation.
In fact, as Putin knows, such ammunition is also used by Russia and has nothing whatsoever to do with nuclear warfare.
And in a later statement, the Russian president indicated that the transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus was part of an existing plan “out of context” of Britain supplying depleted uranium shells to Ukraine.
More relevantly, the construction of the facilities Putin says will be built in Belarus will take years – and there is no sign that they will begin.
In other words, while Putin has repeatedly attempted to use the threat of nuclear war as a deterrent against the West while our governments consider how to respond to Ukraine’s demands for the weapons it needs, our media must be careful to ignore the threats of the not to reinforce the Kremlin or exaggerate its importance.
This point is made well in an article published by the Chatham House think tank last week entitled “Russian Nuclear Intimidation: How Russia is Using Nuclear Threats to Shape Western Responses to Aggression”.
Author, Keir Giles, who worked in Russia for many years, notes: “Russia has achieved notable successes in curtailing Western support for Ukraine, using threats about the possible use of nuclear weapons. Western leaders have explicitly justified reluctance to provide essential military aid to Ukraine by citing Russian narratives of uncontrollable escalation.
“This is a resounding success for Russian information campaigns. . . Responses to Russia’s intimidation rhetoric must be guided by a realistic assessment of its real basis, not fear-induced paralysis.”
