53:01 Yuri Fedorov: How is the West ready to respond to Russia’s possible use of nuclear weapons
 |
| Yuri Fedorov |
Memo to the President. How to deter Russian nuclear use in Ukraine – and respond if deterrence fails
 |
Alexander Plyushov: The most important thing happening today in the world, there were threats from the Russians to use nuclear weapons in a certain case, but were there responses from the US and the sequence of events in case Russia uses nuclear weapons? There are strong and unbelievable, but nothing concrete was said. With what can the Americans or the Europeans respond, and anybody else who has nuclear weapons and is on the side of Ukraine, if suddenly Vladimir Putin decides to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
Yuri Fedorov: On Sunday two people from the top echelons of government of the United States, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Blinken, gave interviews, one on ABC the other on CBS. These are two of the largest TV networks in the US and the main point of their interviews were certain discussions between the representatives of the United States and Russia. What can we say here? First, it is not by accident that these interviews appeared at the same time. This demonstrates that Washington wants to give special importance to these talks that were taking place with the representatives of Russia. With whom were there talks? Of course, it is not clear. Nevertheless, a thought comes to mind, a strange thought, have they used the presence of Lavrov and his entourage and primarily Lavrov, and told him something. Lavrov, was … actually, it was obvious from his demeanor, his body language, which he demonstrated in his press conference, in the US, in New York, that he was apparently in an extreme agitated state, and was at times not in control of himself. That is how it appeared to me.
So, what did the leading people in foreign
and military affairs of the US say?
There will be a response. There will be a response to Russia using
nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The response will be hard. The magnitude of the
response will be in proportion to the way and quantity were the nuclear weapons
applied. I understand it depends on the yield and the target and their number
of bombs. Both Blinken and Sullivan said that yes, there is a threat, we see
the threat and therefore we take it very seriously. True, yesterday there was a
statement by Biden’s press secretary that, for now, for now, US does not see
Russia making preparations for a nuclear strike.
And now, that is in essence everything.
Tatyana Felgenhauer: Do you know how the Russian
side responded to these two statements? Just reading… This Dmitry Medvedev is
beautiful!
Yuri Fedorov: I would mention here not Dmitry Medvedev but Sergei Rybkov. Because
in general Medvedev speaks often for himself, that my opinion, but Rybkov
transmits what he was told. Medvedev maybe as well but here there is more, so
to say, degrees of freedom. [Fedorov
has a physics background]
Let’s go back to the US. What else did they
say? Putin has a way out of this dead end. He has to stop the war and withdraw
his troops. Now with what can the US respond to a nuclear attack. [58:14] There
was a development, published a few days ago by the Atlantic Council. It is a
very influential non-government, close to the government, research organization
in DC, and they published, also apparently not by accident, a so-called memorandum
to the president from the Atlantic Council. In Russian, in simple language
it is called analytic note to the station, to the upper echelons of power,
let's put it that way. There it was said more or less what Blinken and Sullivan
had said, that Putin might use nuclear weapons.
Further, two interesting points. There, in
contrast to many other meditations regarding how the US should respond, there
is, it was said, the threat of using nuclear weapons which should not be left
without a response, else the allies will be disappointed and surprised and it
would provoke further use of nuclear weapons in other conflicts.
With what can be responded?
Two versions. First version is a
non-nuclear attack on Russian troops that are located in Ukraine, but if I
understand correctly, this non-nuclear attack through land and sea based
rockets may just destroy the whole military infrastructure of Russia on the
occupied territories.
That was the first version. The second
version is a proactive strike on the bases from which Russia can launch nuclear
weapons. That is, not on bunkers as the mass media usually interprets this
version, on bunkers and the Kremlin or other centers of decision making in
Russia, but on military units from which the nuclear weapons can be launched if
they are rockets and airplanes and airports if they are bombs.
And the last. Rybkov spoke. Rybkov was
apparently, actually not apparently but most probably, instructed to give the
answer to Blinken and to Sullivan. Here what is interesting is that the figures
are completely incompatible. Rybkov is the deputy foreign minister, not even
the first deputy, Blinken is the Secretary of State and Sullivan is the figure
equal in the hierarchical structure position to approximately Patrushev.
Anyway, if we were to ask with whom did the US have negotiations and talks
with, apparently Sullivan usually talks with Patrushev, that is, what was
usually being reported, that from time to time they have phone conversations.
What did Rybkov say? Apart from saying that
it is time for the US to cool down, it is his habit to use simple expressions
[ОХОЛОНУ́ТЬ], you don’t know why, he repeated the same phrase that Russian
officials repeat: Nuclear weapons may be used by the Russian Federation in the
case of non-nuclear attacks or non-nuclear conflict in which the very existence
of the Russian state is at stake.
Consequently, the question remains open can
one interpret the attempts by the Ukrainian Army to liberate the occupied
territories as the threat to the existence of the Russian state. The question
is open and there may be many different interpretations.
This is the last news regarding what is
happening on the front and the question everyone is concerned about – will
there be a nuclear war. There is no
answer, of course.
Alexander Plyushev: Our expectations have been misled. War or not?
Yuri Fedorov: Well, this all the “beauty” of the present situation. It is a game
with a situation with a very high level of uncertainty for both sides. If you
use the terminology of Game Theory, this is the most horrific type of game when
it is very difficult to say what the opponent will do. And the opponent of
course makes an impenetrable face and is saying that the consequences will be
grave. In fact, they are saying that
from both sides.
