Russian Academic At Government-Owned University: 'The West's Recklessness Could Well Lead To Nuclear War'

On March 4, 2024, the Russian online news outlet Vzglyad published an article titled "Putin's Nuclear Warning Has Been Harsh" by Gevorg Mirzayan, an associate professor at the Department of Political Science at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. [1] In his article, Mirzayan analyzed Putin's February 29 statement that the West risked nuclear war if it sent troops to fight in the Ukraine,[2] saying that the statement comes in response to statements by Western leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, in support of sending troops to Ukraine. He further wrote that, as the West must decide whether to permit a Russian victory against the collective West in a major war or to escalate that war significantly, the latter decision "could well lead to nuclear war."

Russian Academic Gevorg Mizarayan

Following is a translation of the article:

"The Point Is Not That Putin Said It, But Why Putin Said It – And In What Situation He Said It"

"The West's recklessness could well lead to nuclear war. That is why Putin has now conveyed the message to Western elites that there is no 'may well use.' There is only 'guarantee to use.'­­

"In Vladimir Putin's address to the Federal Assembly, the foreign policy segment took up barely 10 percent.[3] However, 90 percent of all Western publications devoted to the address dealt with this part. More precisely, the nuclear component of the message – that 'strategic nuclear forces are in a state of full readiness for guaranteed use.'

"The Western media not only commented on this with words like 'Russia is threatening everyone with nuclear Armageddon.' Some looked deeper. 'Putin has hinted before of Russia's readiness to use its nuclear weapons, but Thursday's warning was unusually sharp,' The Washington Post wrote.[4]

"At first glance, the Russian president did not say anything particularly harsh. From speech to speech, he reminds his Western partners about Russia's nuclear weapons and the fact that (as stipulated in our military doctrine) Moscow is ready to use them. This includes the situation when the conventional war being waged against Russia threatens the country's security and existence.

"As for the tone of the current speech, it was much calmer than, for example, the address of two years ago, when the Russian leader announced the start of the SMO [Special Military Operation].  'No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history,' the president said then.[5] In fact, this was taken as a threat of a nuclear strike – and there is nothing of that sort in the current speech.

"So where does his harshness come in?

"The point is not that Putin said it, but why Putin said it. And in what situation he said it."

"In Practice, Western Troops Will Occupy Russian Territory, Which Means That Moscow May Well Use Nuclear Weapons Within The Framework Of Russia's Nuclear Doctrine"

"In 2022, the Russian warning was uttered 'just in case.' At that time, many experts believed that the SMO would not last long, that Ukraine would show prudence, and Putin's words were supposed to calm the craziest Western 'hawks.' Those who had been playing the Cold War for too long and believed that in order to prevent regime change in Kiev to a pro-Russian one, it was necessary to send troops to Ukraine and thereby risk nuclear war. At that time, this threat worked in the short term – the West did not introduce troops.

"In 2024, the context is different. Now Putin is addressing not a handful of ideologized radicals calling for apparently suicidal decisions for the sake of virtual victory, but a significant part of the Western elite. The point is that now, against the backdrop of Russian military successes and a serious and, most importantly, irreversible weakening of the Kiev regime's capabilities, these elites are faced with a dilemma of two equally (in their opinion) unacceptable options.

"The first is to allow Russia's strategic victory in a multi-year war (waged both with sanctions and indirectly – through the full support from NATO countries for the Kiev regime) over the entire collective West. At a minimum, this will mean that the U.S. and the EU will be unable to use the threat of force to press the Third World in the future, because the myth of the West's omnipotence will be shattered by Russia's persistence. As a maximum, Moscow's victory will cause serious turbulence in the Western ranks – especially in Europe, where the U.S. has been forcing national governments to join anti-Russian sanctions. And, accordingly, the Russian example, coupled with the disintegration of the Western bloc, will lead to a sharp increase in the capabilities and ambitions of China, Iran and other countries – and ultimately to the collapse of the American-centered world.

"The second way out is to sharply increase support for the Kiev regime in order to prevent the above scenario. Not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively – for example, by sending Western troops to Ukraine (the idea suggested by French President Emmanuel Macron).

"And this scenario is fraught with a serious escalation. In practice, Western troops will occupy Russian territory, which means that Moscow may well use nuclear weapons within the framework of Russia's nuclear doctrine."

"This Is Very Dangerous – The West's Recklessness Could Well Lead To Nuclear War"

"In any other case, this 'may well' would have led to the abandonment of plans to bring in troops. But for a significant part of the Western elite, the real and unconditional losses from defeat in a war against Russia may outweigh the theoretical risks that would arise if troops were to be deployed.

"And this is very dangerous – the West's recklessness could well lead to nuclear war. That is why Putin has now conveyed to Western elites that there is no 'may well use.' There is only 'guarantee to use.'

"So, against the background of the Western dilemma, his statement looked harsh. Given the strategic fork leading to two bad options for the West, the Russian president is trying to convey to his former 'partners' the idea that the option of troop deployment is worse. This means that if they want to live, they will have to start gradually coming to terms with the Russian victory in the SMO. And adjust to its consequences."