As the risk of a global war increases, the US left the talks with Russia on Syria in early October, and Moscow started using nuclear blackmail and moved missiles close to NATO countries’ borders. Tensions between the United States and Russia have risen to their highest level since US-Soviet Cold War’s worst times amidst Moscow’s suspension of the Russia-US agreement to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium. Both Russia and the United States are heavily armed with nuclear weapons, and Russian Zvezda TV channel issued a warning that a war with the West could be imminent.

On October 8 Russia moved nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles into the Kaliningrad enclave bordering Poland and Lithuania, both NATO members. “These missile units have been deployed more than once in the Kaliningrad region and will be deployed as a part of military training of the Russian armed forces,” Russian ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.

The Russian Iskander-M missiles, which have a range of over 500km, were transported by ship from the Saint Petersburg area. This move is another sign that Russia is seeking to strengthen its military positions, from the Baltic region to the Middle East, before the new US president takes office in January. It could also be just a show of strength of muscles in order to express displeasure with NATO activity.

Lithuania, neighboring Kaliningrad region, said it would protest to Moscow. “The deployment not only increases tensions in the region, but also possibly violates international treaties, which limit deployment of ballistic missiles of range of over 500 km,” Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said.

From their new positions, Russian missiles would easily reach Poland and the US bases located in the country. Some modifications of the Iskander can hit targets 700 km away, putting the German capital Berlin in range of Kaliningrad, Linkevicius said. “This is a usual Russian tactic: escalate tensions, create a discord and then expect concessions elsewhere. I would like to hope that this will not work this time,” he concluded.

The Polish foreign minister hit out at Russia’s decision to deploy ballistic missiles in its exclave neighboring Poland as “an absolutely inappropriate response” to NATO activity in the region. “We believe that the Russian response of deploying missiles in Kaliningrad is an absolutely inappropriate response to what the North Atlantic Alliance is doing,” Witold Waszczykowski said.

However, according to Marko Mihkelson, the chairman of Estonia’s Parliament national defense committee, it is too soon to worry about what might happen. “What is called for now is to remain calm, and to treat these incidents as attempted blackmail. Russia is simply showing its desire to reinforce its position at the entrance to the Baltic Sea”, Mihkelson said.

It is very probable that Russia’s move is assumed to bring control over the Baltic Sea, just like it had over the Black sea after Crimea annexation. Having missiles in Kaliningrad region places Moscow in a better position if it wants to expand control over the Baltic Sea.

Another recent worrisome sign, Russia started preparing its citizens for a ‘nuclear war’ with the West. Russian state propaganda media and officials claimed the West wants to launch an attack on Russia because of its intervention in Syria. Officials announced that underground shelters were built, which could provide shelter for Moscow’s 12 million people in the event of an attack. A headline in Zvezda, the Defense ministry TV channel, says: “schizophrenics from America are sharpening nuclear weapons for Moscow”.

The Russian media said that people must prepare for an imminent new world conflict after the negotiations between Washington and Moscow on the Syrian conflict had collapsed on October 3. In Russian media narrative a global war is widely present. The most daring newspapers and commentators suggest that it’s already going on.

As part of their preparation for war, 40 million of Russian citizens took part in a nuclear disaster drill between October 4 and 7. That is almost a third of Russia’s population. The ministry revealed that 40 million civilians, 200,000 emergency rescuers and 50,000 units of equipment were involved in the exercise. Russian Ministry of Civil Defense called the 4-day long program a “Civil defense, emergency evacuation and disaster preparedness drill”.

A spokesman said in a statement: “The main goal of the drill is to practice organization of management during civil defense events and emergency and fire management, to check preparedness of management bodies and forces of civil defense on all levels to respond to natural and man-made disasters and to take civil defense measures.” The scheme was divided into three stages: awareness, planning and evacuation. The statement said: “The drill will rehearse radiation, chemical and biological protection of the personnel and population during emergencies at crucial and potentially dangerous facilities. Response units will deploy radiation, chemical and biological monitoring centers at the emergency areas”.

A huge emergency drill can be considered either as strengthening muscles or something more sinister. The four-day “civil defense” drill set alarm bells ringing in the West. British ‘Express’ published the article of Joey Millar under the title “Is Putin preparing for WW3? Russia begins evacuation of forty million people in huge drill”. The author writes: “Vladimir Putin has sparked fears of WW3 after ordering the evacuation of 40 million Russians. The huge four-day “civil defense” drill has set alarm bells ringing in Washington and London, with tensions already high over disagreements in Syria.

Third worrisome move of Kremlin: Vladimir Putin suspended a cooperative program that commits Russia and the United States to eliminating parts of their weapons-grade plutonium stocks. A presidential decree was published on October 3 and it says that “the implementation of the US-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement must be put on hold, due to Washington’s unfriendly actions toward Russia.”

The agreement, signed in 2000 after years of negotiations, was seen as a flagship of bilateral cooperation. According to the deal, the two countries committed themselves to turn parts of their weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles into fuel for nuclear power plants and other non-weapon forms. An amending protocol to the agreement that called on each side to dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium came into force in 2011. The US and Russia Federation own the world’s largest stockpiles of plutonium that can be used for nuclear weapons.

Kremlin made the announcement shortly before Washington said it was suspending talks with Russia on Syria war. US State Department spokesman John Kirby said that bilateral contacts with Moscow over Syria have been suspended as Russia had failed to meet its commitments under the Syria ceasefire deal.

Two weeks later, as the Aleppo massacre was going on, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking after talks on Syria in London, called on Russia and Iran to agree to a new ceasefire. “There are a lot of measures we are proposing to do with extra sanctions on the Syrian regime and their supporters, measures to bring those responsible for war crimes to the International Criminal Court,” Johnson told reporters after the meeting.

James Collins, who was the US ambassador to Russia when the US-Russia plutonium agreement was signed, called the abrogation a “strange move”, given the extraordinary danger, not least to Russians, should plutonium fall into terrorist hands. He added that it was “in my understanding the first time they have withdrawn from a specific nuclear agreement”. “These agreements were designed to limit and circumscribe the future chances of getting back into a competition over nuclear arms. It was an important step in defusing the strategic nuclear arms race”, James Collins said in an interview with the New York Times.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev also spoke about the rising tensions between the two superpowers. Gorbachev commented to the Russian state news agency, RIA Novosti, saying that the world is currently at a “dangerous point.” “I think the world has reached a dangerous point. I don’t want to give any concrete prescriptions but I do want to say that this needs to stop. We need to renew dialogue. Stopping it was the biggest mistake,” he said.

Russia made an attempt to trade resuming the plutonium accord for the end of the US sanctions, receiving compensation for them and for Russia’s own counter-sanctions, and removing troops from Europe. According to a draft law submitted by President Putin, Russia named as conditions for resuming the plutonium accord that Washington repeal its “Magnitsky Act”, which allows Americans to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in human rights violations, and that it reduce its military infrastructure and troops in countries that joined the NATO military alliance after 2000.

Following that, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia’s suspension of the agreement on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium is a signal to Washington that speaking to Russia from a position of force, in the language of sanctions and ultimatums, will not work. He added in a statement that Russia’s suspension of the deal was a “forced measure” and that the way the United States disposes of weapons-grade plutonium does not ensure the irreversibility of its military use.

Russia and the United States signed a nuclear disarmament accord in 2009, when both sides agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles such as bombers or cruise missiles of 500 to 1,100, and a limit on deployed warheads as low as 1,500. It seems unlikely that the two countries will resume cooperation on plutonium soon. Kremlin names groundless conditions which the US will not accept.

Many experts remain skeptical about Russia’s ultimatum. In an interview with “Voice of America”, Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst, said that tons of plutonium that Moscow refused to further transmit to the United States for disposal, cannot be used by Moscow in its own military needs, so the US has no reason to worry about Putin’s ultimatum. “It’s hard to imagine that the US will accept these conditions in exchange of Russia’s continuation of cooperation under the agreement on the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium”, he explained. According to Podvig, the conditions claimed by Russia for renewal of the agreement are unrealistic.

“Radio Liberty” reports, referring to officials and experts, that the US is not inclined to dramatize Putin’s decision as it doesn’t present a real threat. “If Putin thinks he can intimidate the United States, he is profoundly mistaken”, Eliot Engel, a member of the Committee on International Relations of the Congress, said.

Richard Weitz, from the Hudson Institute in Washington, is sure that the decision of the Russian president is nothing but propaganda aiming at making pressure on Washington while it was preparing its response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Syria. “I see this move as an attempt by Moscow to make a preemptive propaganda strike while waiting for statements of the White House to suspend the agreement on cooperation with Russia in Syria”, Richard Weitz. He expressed confidence that the “requirements” relating to payment “reparations for the damage caused by the sanctions are not acceptable to Washington.” “I assume that the White House will perceive this move as a purely propagandist step of Moscow”, he concluded.

David Kramer, a former US Assistant Secretary of State, now a senior director at the McCain Institute, said Moscow is behaving “outrageously”, leaving the agreement unilaterally, as well as showing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. “What he allows himself in Syria, does not fit into any framework of civilized behavior. What he is doing in Ukraine, it has far greater consequences than the decision to suspend the agreement on plutonium disposition”, the expert commented Putin’s move.

Russian liberal politician Konstantin Borovoy said in an interview with the news website “Apostrophe” that “the US reaction will not come”. “It’s not necessary, because this bullying boy is simply trying to draw attention to him… Everyone understands that it is just hysteria”, he said.

But Russian leaders are clever enough to understand that no one among Western ‘partners’ would listen to their requirements. So, why did they do it? This announcement could bring new bargaining on several issues. It also seems that the threat of a nuclear arms race is one of the last arguments for Putin.

Where does it lead? Putin’s bluff is provoking higher stakes for Moscow, for the US and for the global security overall. After US withdrawal from the negotiations on Syria we can expect more American intervention in this conflict. At the same time, Moscow would increase pressure at the points, where it hopes to achieve a stronger presence, for example, in Baltic region. Putin wanted to revive Soviet empire but now he’s coming to the point when Russian Federation is turning into a nuclear rogue state, a huge North Korea.

American historian from the University of California, Andrew Kornbluth, wrote for the Atlantic Council that, while the West still trusts in the power of words, Russia responds by actions. He warns about not mistaking Russian logic and mentality.

“In reality, only a few European states can still comprehend the strange combination of revanchism and nostalgia that animates modern Russia. The Russian ruling class and a large part of the population is determined to restore a sense of self-worth that was lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a country where each milestone of statehood was reached only with the compulsory mobilization of millions, from the reforms of Peter the Great to the industrialization of the 1930s to World War II, the sacrifice of individuals, whether they be Russian orphans, Malaysian Airlines passengers, or the children of Aleppo, hardly merits attention. But at least Western negotiators and dignitaries could spare themselves the indignity and bafflement of having their appeals to conscience, invitations to “collaboration,” and flattery fall on deaf ears time and time again.”

You can’t agree more with Andrew Kornbluth, when you Russia’s actions in the context of a growing danger of a global war. In September four European countries were forced to scramble their air forces to intercept nuclear-capable Russian Blackjack bombers that flew from Norway to Spain. Norway, the UK, France and Spain deployed their own jets as the TU-160 planes skirted the airspace of each country. Norway was the first to detect the two Russian jets and scrambled two F-16 fighters to accompany them towards the north of Scotland. In the UK, Typhoon jets were launched from RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland during the incident, but the Ministry of Defence said the Russian jets did not enter UK airspace.

The Blackjack is the world’s largest operational bomber. It can travel at twice the speed of sound and carry 16 nuclear missiles. Russian President Vladimir Putin was previously accused of Cold War-style ‘brinkmanship’ over similar incidents with NATO aircraft across Europe, including more than 100 Russian jets intercepted in 2014.

In addition to that, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that it has deployed an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to its Mediterranean naval base at Tartus, Syria. In a statement issued on October 4, the Russian ministry said the missile battery was “intended to ensure the safety of the naval base” and the Russian Navy’s task force based off the Syrian coast. The long range surface-to-air missile system was designed to strike aircraft and cruise missiles, as well as to intercept ballistic missiles, as part of the air defense of military bases and large industrial facilities.

In Washington, spokesmen for the US Defense Department subtly criticized the deployment, noting that Russia’s stated military goals in Syria are to target terrorist groups, yet none of the terror groups operating there have any jets or bombers. “It should be clear to the Russians how seriously we take the safety of our air crews, and all the coalition’s air crews,” Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told on October 4.

In a warning to Russia, the Pentagon that the US maintains the right to self-defense against advanced anti-aircraft systems sent to Syria by Moscow. “This is something that we take very seriously – the safety of our aircrews,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said. “Those aircrews have the inherent right to self-defense,” Cook stressed.

In response to that, Russian Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Chief of the Directorate of Media service and Information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, mentioned a possibility of targeting, as we understand, US forces in Syria. Here is what he said: “Concerning Kirby’s threats about possible Russian aircraft losses and the sending of Russian servicemen back to Russia in body bags, I would say that we know exactly where and how many “unofficial specialists” operate in Syria and in the Aleppo province and we know that they are involved in the operational planning and that they supervise the operations of the militants.” Konashenkov threatens the militants but also “unofficial specialists”, hinting presence of American specialists.

Commenting these developments, a Russian expert, Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, said that “US-Russian relations have reached a dangerous point since the most critical moments of the conflict in Ukraine in 2014 – 2015 years.” “It is necessary to move away from the edge of the abyss”, he stressed.

What are your thoughts on Russia’s actions? Is there a possibility that Putin intends to start World War III, or is he just playing war games with the rest of the world?

Any future war with Russia or China would be “extremely lethal and fast” and produce violence on the scale not seen for 60 years, according to US generals. Artificial intelligence and automated weapons systems will accelerate any future conflict, Major General William Hix warned. “A conventional conflict in the near future will be extremely lethal and fast. And we will not own the stopwatch”, Defense One quotes him as saying. The American general warned that technological advancements made by Russia and China in recent years had forced the White House to prepare for “violence on the scale that the US Army has not seen since Korea”.

The US face existential threats from modern-states “acting aggressively in militarized competition,” Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson, Army deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and training, told the panel. “Who does that sound like? Russia?” he asked.

However, Russian military expert, chief editor of “Arsenal of the Fatherland”, a member of the expert council of the Military-Industrial Commission Viktor Murakhovski believes that statements by US generals about the inevitability of war between the US, Russia and China, are no more than populist declarations. “Not a single of recent conflicts in which America would take part, was not fast, the experience of combat actions of the US and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggests the opposite. Wars are long-lasting, and no modern high technologies do not let America finish them quickly”, the expert said.

If the situation doesn’t change, talks give no results and both countries have no Plan B, the world could really see a direct US-Russia confrontation. In theory, it could be a single military incident, such as the incident when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 bomber, a localized clash in Syria or a bigger regional confrontation.

What drives Kremlin? Is Putin bluffing in this situation? Then what is his goal in this dangerous game? How far can it go if Russia’s confrontation with the US continues to grow? These issues concern not only both states and players of regional conflicts where they are involved but also almost all the world.

The fact that Moscow started using a nuclear blackmail in its indirect dialogue with Washington, and Russian military commanders began to threaten US aircraft with the latest air defense systems, remains a particular alarm, as it was unthinkable even in the beginning of this year.

It seems that Putin’s nuclear blackmail is not just a bluff for Kremlin; it has become a demonstration of readiness for an armed confrontation with the West and for a global war. As evidence of this, we saw an increase in Russian defense budget, the militarization of its border regions and of the annexed Crimea, numerous military drills, and mass civil defense training simulating “nuclear attack”. Possibly, at the beginning of the confrontation between Moscow and the West, Putin was bluffing trying to scare the world with its nuclear weapons. But all has changed now as he was openly threatened by Hague Tribunal for the war against Ukraine, for the downed Malaysian plane and for war crimes in Aleppo. He has been pushed into a corner. And there is practically no way out if he doesn’t make considerable concessions. Looking back at his actions in crisis situations, we can expect from Putin irregular decisions, but never a step back.

Author: Michael

Edited by Max Alginin