Vladímir Orlov (Moscow, 1968) speaks Spanish but the conversation is only in English. "I just want to be very precise," he explains. Founder-director of the PIR Center in Moscow, a reference in the nuclear issue for the Russian military and diplomatic authorities and valued –among many others– by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov himself, he sings a grave voice today. Especially in case Belarus or Poland become part of the nuclear button. The blame, if any, yes, would be distributed, he defends.
Does the war in Ukraine open a new nuclear age?
No, it does not open any new door to the use of nuclear weapons because in reality, although it is a very serious conflict, there are different types of weapons and nuclear weapons are not required.
Even if Russia loses ground like it is now?
In Russian military doctrine the use of nuclear weapons is subject to a clear condition: that the existence of the Russian Federation is in danger. Do you think the survival of my country is in danger? There are problems in the new Federation territories, seen as Russian by Russia and Ukrainian by Ukraine. But there is already a part of them not liberated. Use nuclear weapons against new Russian citizens or Ukrainian civilians? It sounds completely stupid. The special operation can and should be resolved by different means. And Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons.
There is much talk of the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.
It is not only Russia that has nuclear weapons in Europe and, unfortunately, this is forgotten in some media. France, the United Kingdom and NATO members, such as the Netherlands, Italy or Turkey, not Spain, surprisingly have nuclear weapons on their territory as part of the US nuclear strategy in the Alliance. We hope you are wise enough not to bring them into this military theater; if it is approached as a nuclear problem it can become a nuclear conflict.
Is the danger low but higher today than it was a few weeks ago?
The danger is there, yes. People are starting to talk about it more and I would even say that some are trying to make provocations against Russia because Russia is demonized in the West and as a demon, probably what he should do is use the most horrible weapon. This is how the image of Russia is wanted.
Are only conventional weapons used in the current conflict?
When Russia responded to the terrorist attacks on the bridge to Crimea, which is a critical and strategic civilian infrastructure, it responded and continues to respond strongly but no nuclear issue was raised. Russia has conventional, high-precision weapons to respond. Including our cyber weapons, which cripple infrastructure and in that sense are not that far from being weapons of mass destruction.
Have they been launched?
This is not yet on the scene but it would not be a surprise if this cybernetic element were added to the current conflict. Needless to say, what Russia did can be reciprocated.
Putin is known to be pressured to press the nuclear button. From Ramzan Kadyrov, for example.
It means that we still have some democracy in Russia and people can have different points of view. Some ask for it. Now, there are also hard-line radicals in the West who talk about punishing Russia by any means possible. Or unfortunately in the Ukraine, where some are asking to have them back even maybe borrowed from the US, like the tactics. But as a nuclear analyst, I work with the facts and the Russian president does not react to the advice of these passionate people. He has other means.
In the past he has argued that a red line would be to see tactical nuclear weapons, for example, in Poland or Belarus. Poland talks openly about it and looks at the US Others are worried that Russia will take the step in Belarus.
It is not impossible that Russian nuclear weapons will appear in Belarus. Belarus is a Russian ally, is very close to Russia, and recently declared that it feels the growing threat from Poland and Lithuania. I will say more: when talking about nuclear weapons, perhaps it is not necessary to provide Belarus with tactical and ground-based ones but with those that can be loaded on planes. They have that ability. Its meaning has even been discussed at an expert and military level although, of course, today those planes do not have them.
It would mean a new war escalation.
It would be basically the same thing that the Americans have been doing for years in other countries training their pilots and maintaining nuclear weapons on bases in different parts of Europe. You will remember that once one fell in Spanish territory from an American plane.
Yes, in Palomares, during the Franco regime.
I always tell my students that this is a good story, because nothing happened. In any case, if Russia decides to provide nuclear weapons to Belarus, they will remain Russian nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory entirely controlled by Russia.
And how to reduce the tension then?
In December last year, Russia told the US, 'Please, let's not play with nuclear weapons. Remove your nukes from Europe. There are about 150. It's not that much. And the Americans said, 'No, we won't. So, in this sense, Russia, of course, can make that move if militarily it thinks it's necessary. It hasn't happened yet, but if I were in the military I would probably consider that option.
Is that why President Biden said that we are worse off than in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis?
We are not worse, but not better either. The situation is different because it is a different century, there is a different number of nuclear weapons now more equal and, also, of countries that have them like China and other players that tend to be forgotten: Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea now. We both have more weapons, which is bad. We both have more experience in how to deal with it, and we have indeed learned.
So why compare it?
One of the problems that exists now is the great mistrust between Russia and the US Even in the support channels for their back communication there is mistrust. In 1962 both sides could use people who informally discussed and played a role in defusing tension, avoiding misperceptions and miscalculations. These days who would start meeting informally with a Russian in Washington? He would be immediately accused of betraying US interests.
Is mistrust now higher than in the cold war?
Yes, mistrust is now higher than in the cold war and than in 1962. And look, Russia behaves responsibly here. To some of your readers it may sound controversial, but I mean it. Russia does not take its nuclear weapons to Nicaragua or Venezuela and in reality it would be easier for it to do so today than it was for Cuba sixty years ago, simply because we have better capacity to do so. But we don't and we won't because we are responsible. No one should cause things to get worse. Let's not play games that would lead the world to catastrophe.
What is the main lesson to be drawn from the Cuban crisis?
That both Russia and the US must take each other's security concerns seriously. When Putin and Biden met in Geneva in June 2021, they had the opportunity to discuss and address them. From my point of view, Biden, who I think is very intelligent, did not take the Russians seriously, he dismissed them, and that started an unfortunate chain reaction. It is not that both countries should love each other, but rather establish more trust.
How to achieve trust in the middle of a war?
The USSR and the USA are co-depositary founders together with the United Kingdom of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was born just six years after the Cuban Missile Crisis because the Americans and Soviets realized they needed to build trust. And that treaty was the basis. You have the legal basis, but we need to see that you both sit down together and talk about strategic stability while taking each other's concerns seriously.
Can they sit and talk when the war rages?
Whatever happens, sit down and talk because the nuclear issue does not allow being emotional, it only requires dialogue in any circumstance, even in dramatic ones.
