“There is no nuclear imminence”, wishes to reassure Thursday, November 3 on franceinfo Lova Rinel, associate researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research, specialist in particular in questions relating to nuclear deterrence. According to an article from New York Times [article en anglais], senior Russian military officials discussed in mid-October when and how Moscow might use a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil. The United States say “increasingly concerned”. The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskovjudge, him, “irresponsible” that the western media “deliberately inflate the subject of nuclear weapons”. Lova Rinel believes that this article should be submitted “in perspective”.
>> War in Ukraine: the article to read to understand the nuclear threat wielded by Russia
franceinfo: Should we take this announcement from the Americans seriously?
Lova Rinel: I think you have to put things in perspective. This is an article from New York Times which recounts a discussion that is more than fifteen days old. It seems short on the time of a war but in nuclear rhetoric, it is extremely long. It’s like you’re talking about a discussion we had six months ago, and I’m putting it back into perspective. A fortnight ago, we were in extreme tension. The question to ask today is: why is this discussion coming out today in the columns of the New York Times ? What is his intention? It is quite simply electoral. We must not forget that the midterms [les élections de mi-mandat aux États-Unis] arrive next Tuesday.
“The United States has voted $43 billion in support for Ukraine and it is necessary – I put myself in the shoes of Joe Biden and the Democrats – to cultivate the need for support for Ukraine.”
Lova Rinel, researcher, specialist in nuclear deterrenceat franceinfo
So this question of nuclear imminence is political since nuclear deterrence responds to two stages: the political rhetoric which is addressed to the population and the nuclear rhetorical dialectic which comes under the discussions that heads of state have in discretion with their state. -major and the various staffs.
Very clearly, you don’t believe it?
I would say there is no nuclear imminence. Moreover, the United States Secretary of Defense says that today there is no indication of an increase in Russian nuclear activity. It is important for us to understand.
“However, I would be very vigilant because the Russians have never abandoned the idea of using nuclear weapons.”
Since in the doctrine of Russia, the fact of being able to attack a non-equipped country, in this case Ukraine, is possible.
We can’t make a nuclear strike, even tactical, totally by surprise? There are necessarily clues that would be in possession of Western services?
Yes and no. Nuclear deterrence is based on a fundamental principle which is credibility: credibility of the weapon, is our weapon capable of defending us and of being nuclear? Then, the credibility of political action, which also depends on the capacity for surprise. So, technically, you’re not supposed to know when a nuclear weapon is ready to go. Submarines are a perfect example, we don’t know where they are. However, in the Russian case, it is necessary to monitor what I call “submarine mobilization”, more military human resources in certain strategic positions. Today, we are not there at all.