Former Putin and Gazprom adviser Dr. Rahr sent us an article today that Putin now has a new wonder weapon and is showing it off: the “doomsday torpedo” on an even larger nuclear submarine. Well, Putin has boasted about doomsday bombers and super weapons for a long time, almost in the Goebbelian sense of wonder weapons for hypersonic weapons ala V 2, which would bring victory, especially since the Russian performance, including their other weapons in the Ukraine, is less convincing and therefore resulted in rather amused comments from NATO and Anglo-Saxon experts. So now the “doomsday torpedo” with which Putin wants to demonstrate his strength:
„Belgorod“ espionage and doomsday torpedoes – Russia launches the largest nuclear submarine in the world
Alright. Perhaps there is a threat that these nuclear submarines could also aim at the USA, but that is already being done by dozens of Russian nuclear submarines and doomsday torpedoes will not scare the USA with their own nuclear equipment, they have too many doomsday torpedoes themselves for that . Threats of nuclear war, doomsday, apocalypse, tactical use of weapons of mass destruction, world famine—all this fear-mongering propaganda no longer works. This is more likely to be perceived as a desperate gesture and empty threats that do not impress. Empty talk and threats. Dr Rahr said: „Yes, the showdown takes place on more distant battlefields“. Even further distant for the US than for Russia and China. Also as far as limited nuclear wars and battlefield Europe or Asia are concerned. Dr Rahr concluded: “So the Western tactic would be to make Putin look like a loudmouth and have-nots. I can understand that, but it’s still highly risky.“ Yes, there is a possibility of escalation, but the USA, GB and the Eastern Europeans have the motto: No risk, no fun. Apart from arms deliveries and financial aid for the Ukraine, Scholz has nothing to deliverin this division of labor, and the Greens and parts of the FDP and the CDU/CSU are looking for a confrontation with Scholz’s hesitant policy and against Putin. In addition, Strack- Zimmermann is now openly undermining Scholz – on the one hand for economic policy reasons, on the other hand for foreign policy reasons, since Scholz has not yet credibly switched to the confrontational policy she had hoped for. She thinks of a Jamaica coalition under Friedrich Merz. Dr Rahr then said: „Merz hasn’t won yet, I see Habeck ahead“. Ahead at what? In new elections as the new Federal Chancellor, when a CDU is far ahead of the Greens in current polls?
But regardless of such party-political constellation speculation, the question remains what is so „highly risky“ about the current Western course towards Russia? If Russia uses limited A, B or C weapons in Ukraine or celebrates a nuclear blast off Finland’s coast, that will not deter anyone in the US, especially as Ukraine is not the US, UK or Eastern Europe, not even the EU , not even all of Europe or NATO territory and off the coast is also not NATO territory and that would be also militarily quite irrelevant. That is precisely the credibility of Western deterrence. For the US, this would remain a nuclear war limited to Ukraine or Europe, even in the event of an attack on NATO territory, while the Europeans willingly pose as a potential battlefield for a limited nuclear war and therefore also consider a credible deterrent against Russia, as against the Sowjet Union in earlier times. That also worked very well during the Cold War and has also worked well and proven itself so far. The eventual exception is the Baltics and Kaliningrad, where Putin could launch a hybrid attack that would leave NATO faced with the choice of nuclear war and activation of Article 5 and possibly paralysis, whether to respond with nuclear strike or not through integrated detterence, as Michael O Hannon discussed in his book „The Senkaku Paradox- Great Power Wars on Small Stakes“, which in turn is understood by US critics as an invitation to Putin. In addition, in the event of a limited use of weapons of mass destruction, Putin could also hope that parts of the West and the world would react with fear, i.e. rather rely on the political-psychological reaction that appeasers might become popular or just bring a Le Pen or a Trump back into office, from whom he then expects a deal and concessions. But, conversely, there is also the question of how the world would react to such a breach of taboo—the last time was Hiroshima in 1945, ushering in a new nuclear age. Since then, no nuclear weapon has ever been used. And no one believes in a nuclear attack against NATO territory or the USA – that would then be the „Planet of the Apes“.
Perhaps with the exception that Putin is really terminally ill, has nothing more to lose, becomes suicidal and if he is not prevented, then wants to go down in human history as the annihilator of the world and Vishnu, of which there is then hardly anything anymore , insofar as no one eliminates him through a regime change or prevents him to give orders in the chain of command. Or that even tougher hardliners will replace Putin and prevail and risk limited nuclear wars. But probably these two scenarios will also be perceived by the West as disinformation and fear campaigns.