Putin's Mind Games

"For the record, we humans fired off over 2000 nuclear bombs, including some 500 at ground level, and we are still here."

None of us understands what is happening in Ukraine. Who can blame the confusion when swamped with a torrent of misinformation and half-truths, all layered atop outright lies? 

Yet, you'd think in this age of spy satellites, mobile phones harnessed to the internet and easy access to instant news — we'd be in the picture. Not so.

Because all sides are seeking to shape the narrative, as states do during wars, you can't trust much of the material fed us. The Russians are pumping out blatant propaganda to shore up their failing invasion. Meanwhile, the so-called free Western media is failing to provide any balance. Early in the conflict, they ran a steady stream of stories suggesting that Putin was dying, mad or close to a breakdown. All proved wrong.

For a lesson in how a spin-operation works, revisit the lead-up to the Iraq war. Taken as a whole, the only logical thing to do is be sceptical of everything. 

To further spice things up, the threat of using nuclear weapons ramps the fear. Putin has made no secret of his position. But would he carry through on the threat? In Washington and other Western capitals, there are two schools of thought.

Optimists assert that Putin won't use nuclear weapons because doing so wouldn't help him. Battlefield atomic weapons work best against large masses of troops or tanks, but the fighting in Ukraine is pretty dispersed. Moreover, taking territory you hit with nuclear weapons isn't an attractive proposition. Plus, he has no way of knowing which direction the fallout might blow, including back into Russia.

Still, Putin might use nuclear weapons to reset the conflict psychologically. He'd aim to shock Kyiv and Washington into de-escalation. Yet that could cause the U.S. and its allies to double down in Ukraine, perhaps directly entering the conflict.

Pessimists aren't so sure Putin is bluffing because using nuclear weapons might not backfire. NATO would have few attractive options in response.

Retaliating with limited nuclear strikes against Russian forces would risk an escalatory spiral. But on the other hand, entering the war with NATO conventional forces might invite more nuclear strikes by Moscow. So there are no decent options.

NATO could try to decapitate the Russian leadership, assuming they know where to hit and when. Yet, I'm sure Putin won't be hanging around in Moscow awaiting a response; he has plenty of hiding places. 

It may help to take a hard look at nuclear weapons cutting through the psychological fear nukes provoke. These weapons do most of their damage by igniting fires over a large area. Further, the blast damage is enormous if detonated at or near the ground. Also, ground or near ground blasts kick up vast amounts of dust. 

This radioactive crud rises high into the atmosphere, spreading its nastiness far and wide. You can create a nuclear winter by blocking the sunlight if you generate enough dust. 

Often overlooked is the electromagnetic pulse generated by nukes and the impact of this phenomenon. More on that later. 

For the record, we humans fired off over 2000 nuclear bombs, including some 500 at ground level, and we are still here. Two of those detonations took place over Japanese cities — places that I've visited. Both are thriving. 

This statement is not meant to make light of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but rather prove the point that the use of nukes does not herald the end of civilisation. Putin, and indeed Western nuclear planners, know this. 

Sure, if an all-out Cold War-type nuclear exchange took place, the outcome would be apocalyptic. Likewise, a nuclear war between Pakistan and India could bring an awful nuclear winter with widespread starvation and societal dislocation. 

But these scenarios are at the far end of the nuclear options spectrum. All nuclear powers understand this and weigh choices that provide them tactical and strategic advantage. 

For example, a high-altitude airburst by a low-yield nuclear weapon with an enhanced electromagnetic pulse sends a signal of intent. Don't mess with us! 

Detonated over a remote area, such a weapon may not cause direct casualties. However, it could take out the power supply, internet and other electronic systems. And then we ask, would your opponent retaliate in such circumstances? He has to calculate whether any action he takes triggers a further escalation. 

For the aggressor, the psychological impact on your opponent could be enough to force them to negotiate or pause their actions. After all, they've broken the nuclear taboo, and we are in uncharted waters.

With a nuke detonated over a city, the direct effects would be more visible as modern life comes to an instant standstill in the vicinity. Then the ripple effects are felt around the world. The stock markets would tank, as widespread panic takes hold.

The ability of nuclear weapons to dislocate and disrupt societies is telling. Even conventional weapons produce severe impacts. In the 1991 GulfWar, Iraq rained Scud missiles on civilian areas in Israel. A study of all admissions to the emergency rooms in the Israeli area hospitals within eight hours following each missile blast found that only 22% had actual physical injuries related to the explosion. 

Another 22% had used their atropine auto-injectors mistakenly believing they had been exposed to nerve gas. A total of 51% were pure stress casualties, people who could not cope with their panic attacks and anxiety.

To understand the levels of physical destruction and untold horrors, you can play around with this website. For example, an airburst of a Russian SS 25 (800KT) device at 20,000 feet over the Black Sea wouldn't cause any deaths. The same device aimed at Kherson, with a ground level detonation, could kill some 140,000 in the initial blast. Many more would die later.

Although the military planners rarely talk of 'world holocaust' or 'total destruction'; instead, you hear euphemisms such as 'maximum damage expectancy' to describe incinerating innocent families in their homes. 

Then again, an adversary may achieve similar levels of disruption and societal dislocation by attacking the physical aspects of the internet. For instance, cutting internet cables or hitting transmission nodes with conventional explosives would be easy.

Instead, despite all the bluff and rhetoric, his military is somewhat restrained. They've not gone for the "We had to destroy it to save it" mode. Plus, he must be wary of forfeiting the remnants of support he enjoys from China, India and the global south. 

For the most part, the old Cold War approach of strategic stability through 'mutually assured destruction' is no longer valid. Nonetheless, if my thesis is correct, Putin invaded Ukraine as part of his broader campaign to reinstate Russian status; thus, destroying the place goes against his aims. 

With this in mind, once you cut through all the nonsense spewed forth by both sides, you have to conclude that Putin is a rational actor. Granted, he is ruthless and has miscalculated, yet he has not unleashed hell on Ukraine by conventional means. 

The challenge now is to deescalate the situation because a trapped Putin may see leverage in using a nuke given that his army is in retreat (that's a discussion for another day).

Lastly, never forget the bizarre principle of nuclear gamesmanship: the winning move is not to play.