We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
How do we avert nuclear disaster in 2023?
Rafael Grossi has a very tough job as head of the UN's nuclear watchdog. But he's an optimist.
Still, the stakes are very high.
We've got North Korea building even more nukes. Russia turned into a rogue state that controls Europe's largest power plant in Ukraine, which is still at risk of an accident. And Iran getting closer to getting the bomb.
Last but not last, there's the global race to build smaller, faster tactical nukes.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Rogue states gone nuclear and the watchdog working to avert disaster
What happens if Russia nukes Ukraine?
How should the US respond if Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine?
Unlike strategic ones, tactical nukes are not subject by signed treaties, so all bets are off, New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World. Independent agencies don't inspect them so we don't know very much about their size, range, effects, or pre-launch prep.
As for the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' dynamic that held nuclear war at bay for 60 years, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Sanger says the dynamics now are "completely different."
Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it's not clear if a Russian nuclear attack there would trigger a major US response.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
- Podcast: America at risk: assessing Russia, China, and domestic ... ›
- Nuclear weapons: more dangerous than ever? - GZERO Media ›
- Nuclear weapons - which countries have what? - GZERO Media ›
- Nuclear weapons could be used; Russia's war gets more dangerous ... ›
- Podcast: Nobody wins in nuclear Armageddon: Rafael Grossi's plan to keep us safe in time of war - GZERO Media ›
- Odds of US-NATO war rising - GZERO Media ›
Kevin Rudd: Xi thinks Putin is a "dummy"
Australia's former PM believes that the once-blossoming bromance between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin has turned toxic. Why? You guessed it: Russia's war in Ukraine.
China's leader thinks Putin is a "dummy" for launching a "halfcocked" invasion that neither the Russian military could pull off nor the Russian economy afford, Rudd — also president and CEO of the Asia Society — says during a conversation with Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer at the Asia Society's HQ in New York.
While Xi won't break ranks in public, Rudd adds that in private, he’s "crab-walking away from 100% endorsement" of Russia, as we saw at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Uzbekistan.
As for whether China can deter Russia from using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Rudd says Xi has been clear: don't do it, Vladimir.
- Ukraine throws wrench into China-Russia friendship ›
- China-Russia relationship status: It’s complicated ›
- Xi Jinping & Vladimir Putin: No trust among autocrats ›
- What We're Watching: Putin-Xi meeting, Brussels vs. Budapest, Sweden's next government, Japanese yen in trouble, ›
- Kevin Rudd: Nobody wanted Putin at the G-20 anyway - GZERO Media ›
- Xi & "friend" Putin could call for Ukraine ceasefire - GZERO Media ›
Ian Bremmer: Risk of nuclear crisis in 2022 is too high
The White House believes that there is a 20% chance of another Cuban Missile Crisis "in the next eight weeks" with Russia, Ian Bremmer said at an event at the Asia Society in New York on Monday. While Bremmer doesn't see as high a chance that Putin would risk using nuclear weapons, he added, "Either way, those numbers are way too freaking high." The even bigger risk, he points out, is that not enough is being done to manage the unprecedented danger from Russia in the medium term.
The Russian economy is being cut off from the West the same way as Iran has been, with a 40% or 50% contraction expected over the next five years. A G20 economy has never been decoupled from the West before. If Russia becomes a rogue state like Iran with ballistic missile attacks, drone strikes, espionage, proxy wars, radicalism, and terrorist violence - but with 6,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal - "that really does not bode well for the next five, 10 years or for our kids. It really doesn't," Bremmer told former Australian PM and Asia Society President and CEO Kevin Rudd at the Asia Society's headquarters in New York.
US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
The Biden administration finally released its long-anticipated National Security Strategy, basically America's biggest threats — foreign and domestic.
The No. 1 external enemy is not Russia but rather China. It also emphasizes the homegrown threat of Americans willing to engage in political violence if their candidate loses at the ballot box.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to David Sanger, who knows a thing or two about national security because it's his beat at the New York Times.
His take on China? Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion.
On Russia, Sanger discusses how Kyiv and the world face the paradox that the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely it is that Vladimir Putin will consider launching a tactical nuke. “If the Russians use a tactical nuclear weapon in a conventional war and essentially get away with … then all of a sudden, the taboo about using nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict is gone,” he says.
Meanwhile, America should not lose sight of the "insider threat" to its democracy, particularly with midterms just days away.
Will Putin drop a nuke on Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin isn't exactly losing the war in Ukraine, but he's definitely not winning it either.
Although Russia has more territory now than before the invasion, things aren't going well. Putin has had to call up reservists, his annexation of four Ukrainian regions was immediately challenged, and he's on the hook now for selling to the Russian people the idea that they are at war with NATO and the West.
Putin's push to win at all costs might soon force him to make one very serious and potentially scary choice. He needs to land a big blow, so what bigger blow than the biggest of them all: nuclear weapons. Russia's president has already hinted at the possibility, while Washington and NATO are sorting through what they might do in response.
Let's look at why he might, or might not, pull the trigger to launch what is known as a tactical nuke, a low-yield atomic warhead designed to take out military targets, not entire cities.
The sheer destructive capacity of a nuclear weapon could turn the tide of the war in Russia’s favor. Even a small nuclear strike could wipe out entire units of Ukraine's army in minutes. It would also give the Russians time to regroup their forces to push back against the ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive and appease hardliners griping about Russia not doing enough to win in Ukraine.
Putin still has some other options. He could order cyberattacks, the sabotage of European energy links, or more intense conventional strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. But none of those have the shock value of a single nuke, which might just scare Kyiv into accepting Russia’s terms for “peace” — such as the recent land grab of 15% of Ukraine.
Also, Putin perhaps thinks he can get away with it (relatively) unscathed. In other words, the US and NATO will respond, but probably not in kind.
Aside from warning of somewhat vague "catastrophic consequences," the West hasn't been very clear on what it would do if Putin pushed the nuclear button. Doing nothing at all is a non-starter, yet the US and its NATO allies, wary of a dangerous escalation with nuclear-armed Russia, might only toughen sanctions and send more advanced weapons to Ukraine — a best-case scenario for Putin.
Putin might even test a tactical nuke just to bait NATO into attacking Russia, which he's been daring the alliance to do since his invasion began. It would give him an excuse to say he was right all along about the West trying to encroach on Russia’s sphere of influence.
Still, for Russia, a non-nuclear Western response might be almost as bad as a nuclear one. US airstrikes could wipe out most of Russia's forces inside Ukraine and sink its entire Black Sea fleet in one fell swoop. Putin might back down if he thinks the price would be too high — even if it went against his own grievance-fueled narrative.
Dangerous escalation? Perhaps. But it hasn’t been ruled out by retired senior US officials.
Putin might lose his two most powerful friends if he pushes the button. Although we know both China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi are unhappy about how the war is going, we don't know what they recently told Putin about how they’d react to a Russian nuclear strike. But Putin does, and his decision-making will surely factor in how it'll go down in Beijing and New Delhi.
The Chinese or Indian response could be anything from a reprimand at the UN to cutting economic ties with Moscow right when the Russian economy is reeling from sanctions despite a strong ruble. Just the threat of turning down Russian oil and natural gas — which Putin needs to sell to keep his war machine going — should give the Russian leader pause.
There's no turning back. If Putin crosses that line, all other options cease to exist. He loses control of the narrative because he's done the unthinkable. Then again, perhaps the Russian leader has already backed himself into a corner, and it's all just a question of not if but when he orders the first nuclear strike since World War II.
What do you think Putin will do? Let us know here.This article comes to you from the Signal newsletter team of GZERO Media. Sign up today.
- How close are we to a 2nd Cuban Missile Crisis? - GZERO Media ›
- How close are we to a second Cuban Missile Crisis? - GZERO Media ›
- Russian attacks on Ukraine are state-sponsored terrorism ›
- GZERO Exclusive: Ian Bremmer: Risk of nuclear crisis in 2022 is too high - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer: US support for Ukraine vs fear of Russian escalation - GZERO Media ›
- Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant at risk of disaster, says top nuclear watchdog - GZERO Media ›
- Russia-US nuclear war is no fantasy, says Kremlin ally - GZERO Media ›
Nuclear weapons could be used; Russia's war gets more dangerous
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I have to talk about Russia. There's plenty of news in the world. There's Brazil, there's United Kingdom, there's Iran, but no, Russia is the biggest story, and it's because we've just seen the worst week in the war in terms of escalation and danger that we've had since the initial invasion on February 24th. President Putin, after meeting with some of his closest remaining friends on the global stage, the Indian prime minister, the Chinese president, the Kazakh president, all telling him directly, "Hey, the war is a horrible idea. Please end this as soon as possible." Putin does exactly the opposite and escalates. Calls up a minimum of 300,000 additional troops in a mobilization, something he had been dragging his feet on and avoiding over the last months because he knew how unpopular it would be in Russia.
Putin also announcing annexation of four separate territories in Ukraine. By the way, territory he did not completely occupy at the time that he announced, the referenda the first time I think that's ever happened in history. But nonetheless, very clearly a significant escalation with the war in Ukraine, telling the Ukrainian people, "We are taking this land from you, you are not getting it back. We will consider it Russian territory and we will defend our territory to the death." Some 7 million people on the ground in these territories annexed some 15% of Ukrainian territory. Beyond that, we had pipelines that were suddenly sabotaged, Nord Stream 1 and 2. No hard evidence as to who is behind that, though all NATO members believe both publicly and privately that the Russian government engaged in that attack as a demonstration effect, kind of similar to what the Iranians did against Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia a few years ago. The largest refinery in that country saying, "We can do a lot more if you continue to behave to isolate us the way you have been."
And now of course, we also have the Ukrainians taking land back, significant counter offensives that had started a few weeks ago and are being extended in Kherson, in the south, just north of Crimea, as well as in Donetsk, part of the Donbas, which has been the focus of this second phase of Russia's special military operations. So what is all of this mean? Well, it means that Putin is increasingly really in a box. He's now announced to his own population, "We have taken this territory. We're fighting for it. It's ours. It's going to cause real sacrifice. It's going to mean that we're going to send your young men into the battlefield, and a lot of them are going to face injury and death."
The Russians don't have adequate weaponry to give them to fight this war. They don't have the time to adequately train them. Many are being sent to the front without either, and that means that they're going to continue to underperform. Though Russia can send a lot more people into the field in southeast Ukraine than the Ukrainians themselves can marshal in the near term. Meanwhile, more sanctions are coming from the West. The US, the UK have already announced some in response to the annexation. The EU will have a unanimous eighth round of sanctions later this month. No one is asking now, "Are the Europeans about to break?" Despite the fact that that's what everyone was asking a couple of weeks ago before these escalations. Whether it's the US, the UK, or the Europeans, at least for the coming months, what we're seeing is more aid for the Ukrainians, more weapons and intelligence for the Ukrainians, more willingness to do everything they can to help the Ukrainians fight and take as much land as possible before the Russians get enough troops in to defend territory and hold the line.
In other words, this is a full-fledged, not only proxy war, but increasingly has elements of a hot war between Russia and NATO. And perhaps the most disturbing piece of all of this is if you watch Putin's speech that he gave last week, or if you look at Russian state media, it is all about Russia losing land, losing in the battlefield because they're fighting NATO, because of everything NATO's doing. And so the willingness of the Russians to increasingly take the fight to NATO is growing. And of course, the more we see that, the more dangerous it gets, the greater the potential for this war to actually expand. I don't, as I mentioned, believe that we are close to a nuclear weapon actually being used in battle. But I recognize it's now possible, and I wouldn't have said that a couple of months ago. I'll tell you, after the Russian speech, after Putin speech announcing the annexations and the mobilization in the middle of the night, I woke up thinking about "The Day After", which I haven't thought about in decades.
This was a movie that some of you will remember. I saw it in high school and the next day we had a day off basically where all we did was talk to local leaders and civic leaders about what would happen if there was a nuclear war. I had nightmares for months. There's no way you can watch Putin rattling nuclear savers with his singular capability to have that finger on the button to say that he is prepared to do everything possible to defend land that he will lose and not be somewhat horrified that we could, again, for the first time since World War II see nuclear weapons used in battle. Everything possible has to be done to avoid that. And yet so far, the United States and Europe have done a fantastic job in punishing the Russians. They've done a fantastic job in supporting the Ukrainians, but they've done a really poor job at deterring Putin.
They haven't been able to change his behavior. They haven't stopped him from escalating on the ground in Ukraine. And of course, the more he does that, the greater the desperation. The economic desperation, the international desperation, the domestic political desperation, that is what we are increasingly seeing from Putin. At some point, Putin needs to not be humiliated, but he needs to recognize reality.
He needs to understand that the future of Russia is not in the occupation of Ukraine. And unless he's prepared to get that and he's making it harder and harder to get that on himself, then we are heading towards a much more dangerous confrontation even that we've seen since February. So that's where we are presently. I wish I had some better news for everyone. It's going to be a very tough winter, certainly for the Europeans, even more so for the Russians, and particularly for the Russians that are being sent to the front lines. I don't envy them at all, but I wish we could find a way to deescalate. Unfortunately, for now, that appears to be not in the cards.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com- Risks of Russia losing: Putin, Ukraine, and potential for escalation ... ›
- Nuclear weapons: more dangerous than ever? - GZERO Media ›
- Don't bet on Russia backing down - GZERO Media ›
- GZERO Exclusive: Ian Bremmer: Risk of nuclear crisis in 2022 is too high - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Nobody wins in nuclear Armageddon: Rafael Grossi's plan to keep us safe in time of war - GZERO Media ›
- Russia-US nuclear war is no fantasy, says Kremlin ally - GZERO Media ›
Should we still be worried about the nuclear threat?
Everyone loves to say that nuclear weapons are so destructive that they've kept us all safe for decades. But, have they? Nukes expert Kelsey Davenport recalls how during the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union came very close to attacking each other with nukes, and America once almost accidentally detonated a nuke on its own soil. "We've really been quite lucky to have avoided an intentional or accidental nuclear exchange at this point. And my fear is that one day, our luck is going to run out." Despite all that, Davenport says nukes no longer make headlines because they feel "very abstract" for people. Davenport spoke with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Nuclear weapons: more dangerous than ever?