FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Nuclear Bravado: Putin’s Nuclear Invincibles

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, seemed perplexed, sticking to a drafted script.  Politicians on the Hill were troubled.  The Pentagon attempted to be reassuring.  The Russian bear was on the move in indelicate fashion – again.

In his fourteenth state of the nation address, President Vladimir Putin was keen to focus on Russian-made and prowess in military hardware.  This was not an occasion to talk about the tepid and peaceful.  The talk, rather, would be about the latest in jets, missiles (cruise and intercontinental) and drones on steroids.

Mindful of the March 18 election, Putin did spend the first half of his presentation speaking about targeting poverty (20 million Russians live below the poverty line) and improving life-expectancy.  “[F]rom the point of view of the extremely important task of ensuring people’s quality of life and welfare we, of course, have not achieved the level we require.  But we have to do this and will do this.”  Such aspirational talk gave way in the second half to matters military.

It proved to be quite a show.  Putin added to the props of a nuclear theatre, layered with display and illustration.  He has an election to win, but despite being all but guaranteed victory, tough talk is mandatory.  “They need to take account of a new reality and understand [this]… is not bluff.”

The nature of nuclear theatre is that bluff and reality are two sides of the same scratched coin.  Putin made use of video presentations featuring two nuclear delivery systems that were described as beyond detection.  In doing so, he was channelling a Trump styled reality show filled with showmanship, threat, and biting promise.  In an effort to reap popular appeal, he also invited members of the public to come up with names for a few of the weapons systems. The Russian Ministry of Defence has duly obliged, enabling submissions to made to a site.

One delivery system, in particular, was described as including a “low-flying, difficult-to-spot cruise missile… with a practically unlimited range and an unpredictable flight path, which can bypass lines of interception and is invincible in the face of all existing and future systems of both missile defence and air defence.”  This cruise missile is supposedly identical in its external appearance with the Russian X-101, with one difference: it’s nuclear powered.

Another system involves a nuclear-powered underwater drone with the means to travel thousands of miles before finding its point of detonation in, let’s say, a US port, thereby evading any missile systems above water.

Finding a dig at the United States impossible to avoid, one video featured the US state of Florida peppered by Russian missiles.  No one in Washington could have been surprised by the show.  Since the Bush administration’s 2001 decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, accompanied by a failure from Washington to chew over Russian worries over missile defences, Moscow’s military has busied itself.

In frank terms, Putin noted the genesis of the latest modernisation program.  “During all these years since the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, we have been working intensively on advanced equipment and arms, which allowed us to make a breakthrough in developing new models of strategic weapons.”

Further stress has been made this year by the Trump administration on improving US anti-ballistic missile capability, though the object has been the overly inflated threat of North Korea.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review has also proposed adding to the US nuclear inventory, including a low-yield warhead for the US submarine fleet and a new cruise missile deployable at sea.  There was no mention of a nuclear-powered cruise missile, which was abandoned in the 1960s for fears that it would leave a trail of uncontrolled radioactivity from its unshielded reactor.  As ever, one upmanship between Russia and the United States persists, with US intelligence sources claiming that the Russian variant crashed in testing.

The unmistakable stress in the Nuclear Posture Review is not one of moderation but enthused embrace for the nuclear cause.  “The tone of the document,” poses a sombre Jeffrey Lewis, “as well as some of the more controversial proposals, gives the impression of enthusiasm for the arms race.”  Threats are stressed and underlined; rival powers are blamed.  The US is painted as a paragon of progress in the field of nuclear disarmament, while “others, including Russia and China, have moved in the opposite direction” adding “new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals”.

The Putin nuclear show also pokes fun at such goals as total nuclear disarmament, especially by the main nuclear states.  Reducing the nuclear arsenals of the two major powers possessing them has lead to another development: modernisation.

This enables Trump to, for instance, emphasise in self-contradicting fashion “the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and the requirement that the United States have modern, flexible, and resilient nuclear capabilities”.  Members of the nuclear club persist in their reluctance to abandon their lavishly expensive toys.  The trend, then, is towards improvement, adjustments, and refurbishment.

Euphemised in such a way, the threat of human extinction is obfuscated by different political packaging, not to mention furniture that is quibbled over at summits.  Being modern entails enlightenment, and mass killing with the latest, state of the art nuclear weaponry.  The concern for some US officials will be Trump’s imminent insistence that what the Russians can do, the US can do better.

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail