Donations
Veridica.md
Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and his underlings (both officials and propagandists) have threatened, more or less openly, that Moscow might use its nuclear weapons against the West if it backs Kyiv or cross certain “red lines”, most of which were actually crossed in the meantime: if the West provides Ukraine with certain weapon systems (HIMARS missiles, then ATACMS missiles, F-16s) if Russia sustains any defeat on the front, if Ukrainian troops enter Russia, etc.
The latest such threat was made by Putin just as the UN General Assembly was underway in New York, where Russia was the target of criticism from several Western leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Putin said Russia was reviewing its nuclear policies and could henceforth respond to attacks with conventional missiles by resorting to nuclear weapons. If the Russia Federation is attacked by a country that does not have nuclear weapons, but is backed by a nuclear power, then Russia will be able to use nuclear weapons against both countries, Putin also threatened. It's a clear reference to Ukraine and the United States and Britain: in the past, Russians claimed these two Westen states are reportedly guiding the missiles they supply to Ukraine, without providing any evidence to back this claim.
Russia knows that using nuclear weapons would lead to mutual annihilation
The moment Putin chose to issue this threat is not random: Volodymyr Zelenskyy traveled to the United States to talk his allies into allowing Ukraine to use the long-range missiles they provide in order to strike any targets across Russian territory. The reason American and British officials, as well as others in the Western camp supporting Ukraine, have invoked to oppose this scenario is that such strikes would lead to an uncontrollable escalation of the conflict, beyond Russia's “red lines”. And these lines are always multiplying, obsessively made public by Vladimir Putin in his typically menacing language. In mid-September, the Russian president said in Saint Petersburg that the use of long-range missiles by Ukraine “would substantially change the very nature of the conflict, its very essence”, the equivalent of NATO states getting involved in the war on Russian territory.
What Putin never says, and NATO officials (with very few exceptions, such as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen) seem to forget, is that the only red line that has ever mattered is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. And Russia has been crossing this line ever since 2014. Putin and most NATO officials also forget the fact that Russia does not have the right to define the “nature” and “essence” of the conflict, which is the exclusive prerogative of Ukraine, the aggressed state fighting to defend itself. And the red lines invented by Putin have absolutely no value, serving only to threaten and scare his opponents. As long as Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity continue to be violated, its army has the moral and legal right to strike the enemy wherever and however it sees fit in order to win the war.
Many so-called analysts invoke the use of nuclear weapons, of any kind, as part of this false discussion about crossing red lines. This is just another fallacy, equally promoted by Moscow and insufficiently addressed by Western decision-makers in their public debates. The proper approach in this case would require the clear presentation of the very simple logical judgment: the use of nuclear weapons by any state is a suicidal act in itself. It would lead to the annihilation of the very state that launches the nuclear attack. This simple reason leads us to infer that no state will ever use such weapons as an offensive action. All fixed and mobile platforms (sea and airships, submarines, etc.) capable of launching nuclear-grade missiles are the number one priority of continuous satellite observation and other means of monitoring. Any change in their status, from standby to armed, instantly leads to the activation of response procedures in potential target states, a response that can lead to the complete destruction of the aggressor. The use of nuclear weapons is tantamount to Armageddon, nothing short of the end of the world.
In this particular case, the question of Kiev's use of long-range missiles against the Russian aggressor is a false red line. If the war is to be shortened and Ukraine is to emerge victorious, even partially, then this country must be provided with the necessary ammunition and means to strike any Russian targets identified as critically important, anywhere on the territory of the aggressor state. President Zelenskyy's request is completely legitimate.
Crimea, a key strategic objective for Ukraine. The Kerch bridges – the top priority
In an official statement issued on September 22, Zelenskyy announced that he would travel to the United States not only to attend the UN summit, but also to present to all the leaders of states and international organizations his “victory plan”. In this context, the Ukrainian president was expected to hold a crucial round of talks in Washington with the US president, Joe Biden, and vice-president Kamala Harris. Ukrainian and international media immediately picked up on the official statement, highlighting Zelenskyy's claim that “this autumn will determine the future course of this war” and his insistence that he was going to the United States to secure approval for the use of long-range missiles compared to conventional ones used at present.
At this point, we can discuss what I consider (and I have been saying it publicly since 2023) to be the main and the only truly realistic objective of Ukraine’s defensive operation: the destruction of the Kerch bridge. There are actually two parallel bridges built over 2015-2019 to facilitate road and rail traffic between the Crimea Peninsula and the Taman Peninsula in Russia's Krasnodar federal district. The design of the two factored in the absence of permanent and sufficient water sources in Crimea, as well as Russian logistical needs after the annexation of the 2014 peninsula. The bridges became all the more important after the armed aggression launched in February 2022, when the security of logistical links between Donbas and Crimea, on the mainland now controlled by Russia, came under threat. Any road or rail transport from Donbas to the peninsula, through territories de jure controlled by Ukraine, is a legitimate target for Ukrainian artillery and air fleet, which can easily hit any target in the NE-SW strip between the frontline and the Azov Sea. The strip of land has a width of around 200-250 kilometers. The Ukrainians can hit this area easily, but the Kerch bridges are about another hundred kilometers away. This means that the safe distance from the territory now controlled by Ukraine (from Nikopol, for instance) to the bridges is about 300 kilometers in a straight line.
If Zelenskyy gets the go-ahead of Western leaders to use missiles that exceed this distance, with ranges of around 400 or even 500 kilometers, then indeed this fall “will determine the future course of this war”. With such weapons and the greenlight for their use, destroying the bridges is just a matter of careful planning and execution, a process that could take several weeks, two months at most. The mainland connections between Donbas and Crimea would also be under permanent threat. Based on my military experience, I expected the Ukrainian offensive towards the Azov Sea might also receive a critical boost.
Ultimately, the strategic importance of Donbas is insignificant for Ukraine and its allies. Donbas is a region with an overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and pro-Russian population, with important resources but an outdated industry. What really matters, for the future of Ukraine and the Black Sea region, is control of Crimea. Under Russian control, this genuine land-based “aircraft carrier” threatens all trade in the Black Sea, as we have already witnessed since the spring of 2022. And there are important voices in Ukraine now speaking openly about this possibility. This gives credit to everyone, including myself, who’s been saying all along that Donbas is open to negotiation, being an important point on the agenda for peace, while Ukraine cannot give up control over Crimea. This is what the war is being fought for, this is what the Ukrainians are fighting for, first and foremost. The ports on the Crimean Peninsula are the key to the future of this country. I, for one, believe that even Moscow's current allies, especially China, would be more content if the peninsula was returned to Kyiv’s control. East-West maritime logistics routes via the Black Sea would be exposed to fewer risks than now, and they intercede with China's links with Western markets, primarily the European single market.
The red lines are part of Russia’s disinformation campaign
To conclude, the whole point about these “red lines” must be interpreted strictly as part of Russia's vast and vile campaign to impose its false narratives about problems of its own doing. Veridica is actively contributing to efforts to dismantle the logic behind this campaign, which has multiple targets in the generic “West” and is now expanding with the help of artificial intelligence. The Kremlin's main objective appears to be to subvert the credibility of authorities in Western liberal democracies at all costs, by undermining the values and institutions on which global economy and liberal democracy were built after 1945 and continued to expand and take deeper roots after the end of the Cold War and with the collapse of the communist bloc.
Visibly fixated on the memory of the misconstrued grandeur of the USSR in relation to its satellites, Putin remained anchored in this fantasy, unable to understand that the Soviet Union collapsed precisely because it sacrificed too much material and human capital for its communist and imperialist goals. At present, Putin has embarked on a campaign to punish those he considers personally responsible for the collapse of his world, but he's making one mistake after another. Like his Soviet predecessors, his former bosses, Putin fails to see that the endeavor he’s undertaken is shattering the very foundations of Russian society. A lot of Ukrainians are killed in the war, but Russians too, in greater numbers. Instead of developing peaceful trade relations with Western partners, thus helping to finally create a competitive Russian industry, Putin chose to continue on the path Russia embarked on in the 19th century. The Russian economy has lost almost everything in terms of financial investments and Western technology, becoming more reliant than ever on raw material exports. Isolated from the international community, the Russian state today has closed most of its doors to the outside world, while the few that remain open will undoubtedly close in time. Trust has been nearly completely lost, as Russia is today synonymous with the export of (in)security and (in)stability both in Europe, as well as in Africa and the Middle East. All Russia has to offer today is raw materials, war, news and false, destabilizing narratives.
Putin may actually have repeated the legendary mistake of the Lydian king Croesus. According to Herodotus’s account, faced with the problem of the Persian threat more than 2,500 years ago, the King of Lydia went to consult the Oracle of Delphi. He asked the Oracle whether or not to declare war on the Persian King Kurush (known as Cyrus in the Greek world), who had defeated the Median King Astyages, and whose influence was becoming a growing threat to the western kingdom of Lydia. To that, the Oracle replied sharply: if you start the war, you will destroy a great kingdom. Croesus crossed the river Halys (Kızılırmak in Turkish), which was the Anatolian border between the Lydian and the Median kingdoms, attacked the Persian army, but was pushed back and then utterly defeated at the Battle of Tymbra (winter 547-546 B.C.). Croesus was killed, Cyrus installed a governor in the Lydian capital of Sardis to rule on his behalf over the newly conquered territory, thus fulfilling the Oracle’s prophecy: the war started by the Lydian king led to the destruction of a great kingdom – his own. The same fate befell many others over the next centuries, including and especially Hitler. The evolution of Putin's war against Ukraine and the liberal-democratic Western world now looks increasingly likely to lead to Russia's second collapse in just over three decades. Like Croesus or Hitler, Putin has started a senseless war that is destroying his own country and its future. Everything depends on how Ukraine’s Western allies will interpret his red lines and whether or not they approve the use of long-range missiles by the Ukrainian army. For its part, it is already clear that Ukraine is aware this autumn can mark the start of a campaign that would bring victory and put an end to Putin’s regime, possibly by the end of next year at the latest.
---copie-image.webp)
