For over seven decades any talk of the use of nuclear weapons seemed to be reserved for the highly irrational in the international system and to political leaders short of common sense.

All these things seem to have been consigned to the dustbin of history when looking at the conflict in the Ukraine, foolishly passed off as a Special Military Operation to take out Nazis and thugs. In the last one month the words “nuclear weapons” have been used with an alarming intensity and frequency. And all because of a fear and perception of what Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, would do as he is seen on being at the receiving end in a conflict that was not expected to last eight months.

From “Don’t do it” as that would change the “face of war”, US President Joseph Biden himself warned that the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” has not been this high since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. “He (Putin) is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming… I don’t think there is any such thing as the ability to easily use tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with Armageddon”.

Senior administration officials at the White House and Pentagon have sought to play down President Biden’s remarks at a Democratic fund raiser even as he has been sharply rebuked by some like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “reckless” and stressing that Washington should go about with “quiet diplomacy”.

Russia’s predicament

There are at least two things taking place in Russia that are inter-connected leading to this heightened discussion on the extent to which Putin can be “pushed” around before he finally goes in for the unthinkable.

First in spite of all the heavy air strikes inside Ukraine as a retribution for damaging a vital supply bridge in Crimea, the Russian army is not seen as performing up to expectations; and the recent call for reserves has not exactly been a spectacular success.

Second, with the military offensives faltering, the political right in Russia has stepped up the heat on Putin, some of them openly calling for raising the stakes dramatically by way of using nuclear weapons. Whether friends and political allies of the Russian President have thought through the consequences is a different matter.

In a televised address to the nation, Putin said, “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without a doubt use all available means to protect Russia and our people — this is not a bluff”. What has the West worried is how Putin and his hawkish advisors are going to define Russia — the traditional boundaries of the Russian Federation or Russia plus the 20 per cent of Ukraine recently captured and ‘legitimised’ through a referendum that few in the comity of nations have recognised. Many have seen this recent political exercise as patently bogus.

Ukraine has said that it will be launching counter offensives to take back lost land but will Moscow perceive this to be an attack on the integrity of the country? On President Putin moving in the direction of a nuclear attack, William Burns who heads the Central Intelligence Agency said, “We have to take very seriously his kind of threats, given everything that’s at stake”. But some analysts maintain that while Putin could be bluffing for now that could change if Russia continues its downslide in the conflict and pressures intensify domestically.

As a former KGB senior official President Putin cannot be unaware of the consequences of going nuclear even if experts now maintain that it would, at the very worst be, some kind of a low yield tactical explosive aimed at Ukrainian military, infrastructure and communication complexes, perhaps even a fraction of the weapon that was used by the US to end the second world war.

The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 was a 15 kiloton that levelled five square miles and by December claimed some 140,000 lives. At this point of time very few are talking about strategic weapons — a doomsday scenario for Russia, Europe, Asia and America. Russia and the US, between themselves, account for 90 per cent of nuclear warheads with Moscow being “ahead” by a few hundreds.

India’s role

A conflict that would now seem to be spiralling out of control would require some calm thinking on both sides before any country, including India, could play a meaningful role. New Delhi has good working relations with both Russia and Ukraine and has taken a principled stand at the United Nations and elsewhere on the conflict. But for India’s good offices to be successful, both Moscow and Kyiv must be willing to listen and understand the imperatives of world order; and generally for the West to factor in what President Putin has been saying for the last 20 years as far as security guarantees.

In October 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis lasted for 13 days before both Moscow and Washington spared the world of another holocaust. “I thought it was the last Saturday I would ever see”, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara is reported to have said in thinking back of the nightmare.

Almost to the day 60 years later the world is faced with a similar situation except that the stakes are much different and more extensive. It is not a question of whether the West would risk a catastrophe on account of Ukraine; but of leaderships risking in being on the wrong side of history for reasons of grandeur and prestige.

The writer was a former senior journalist in Washington for 14 years covering North America and United Nations. Views expressed are personal.