We have been asking this question ever since President Vladimir Putin authorized a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Would Moscow use nuclear weapons in this conflict?
President Joe Biden is not completely ruling it out.
The US president expressed concern this week that Putin might use tactical nuclear weapons. He considers the threat to be "real.".
I'm not sure if Vice President Biden reads the Russian publication Profile. If he does, you can see why he's anxious.
A prominent expert on Russian foreign and defense policy, Sergei Karaganov, published a piece in Profile last week. Mr. Karaganov, a hawk, serves as the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy's honorary chairman. He has good ties to the people who are in positions of authority here, to put it briefly.
He makes the following case. Russia will have to "lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons" in order to make nuclear deterrence a compelling argument once more in order to "break the West's will.".
"We must prevent a descent into global thermonuclear war by making the enemy aware that we are prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike in retaliation for all of its present and past acts of aggression.
"But what if they don't back down? Then we're going to have to hit a lot of targets in a lot of different countries to get those crazy people to come back to their senses. ".
We have grown accustomed to hearing Moscow threaten us with nuclear war since last year.
And President Putin has confirmed that Russia has already stationed a first batch of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a move he claims is intended to serve as a warning to anyone "thinking of inflicting a strategic defeat on us".
But debating the benefits of a nuclear strike on the West as a preventative measure is on a totally different plane.
Clearly, not everyone in Russia agrees with this concept.
The business newspaper Kommersant today published an article titled "Nuclear War is a bad way of resolving problems.".
Possibly the greatest ever understatement. But what's fascinating about this article is that it implies that Russia's internal debate over whether or when to use nuclear weapons in the conflict in Ukraine has entered the public sphere. Additionally, the hawks are not in complete control.
The Kommersant article explains why, in the opinion of another group of Moscow-based experts on foreign and defense policy, Sergei Karaganov is mistaken. Really wrong.
The Centre for International Security is a think tank within the Russian Academy of Science. Alexei Arbatov, Konstantin Bogdanov, and Dmitry Stefanovich write, "The idea that the use of nuclear weapons can halt escalation and resolve strategic problems that conventional military means have failed to do is extremely dubious and, most likely, mistaken.
There are many instances of military operations having unintended consequences in recent history. However, they did not involve the use of nuclear weapons. The conflict would become much more unpredictable and the stakes of a confrontation would increase significantly in the event of a nuclear strike.
"The worst foundation for a bright future is the radioactive ruins that 'nuclear roulette' would most likely result in. Fans of sensational theories and risky gambling would do well to keep that in mind. ".
Which brings us to another query we've had since the beginning of Russia's conflict in Ukraine: what on earth is happening?
It's possible that other Russian academics felt they simply couldn't remain silent after hearing Mr. Karaganov's call for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
If so, it demonstrates that even within the current constraints, there is still room on some platforms for limited debate and discussion on specific topics, despite the fact that the Russian media landscape is now heavily controlled by the state. particularly important subjects like nuclear conflict.
Or, perhaps the entire discussion is intended to draw attention from the West and make President Putin appear to be the good guy to Mr. Karaganov's bad guy.
After all, the head of the Kremlin hasn't advocated for an initial nuclear strike against the West. Because of this, the argument goes, you'd better have a seat and make peace with him before the hardline Karaganovites win and detonate the bomb.
With Russia's anti-Western rhetoric on the rise and the Ukrainian army's counteroffensive in full swing, one thing is certain: the nuclear issue won't go away.
