The Washington Post reports:

The rebellion in Russia by Wagner mercenaries confronted Western officials with one of their gravest fears: the possibility of political chaos and instability in the country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

Anxiety over who might gain control of Russia’s weapons of mass destruction has long tempered Western hopes that President Vladimir Putin might be ousted from power. But months of nuclear posturing by Putin and other senior Russian officials, and a new debate among Moscow analysts on using a nuclear weapon on a NATO country, have raised doubts about whether Putin really provides the stability necessary to avoid an atomic Armageddon — or if he is the risk they should fear most.

Russian officials have played on the West’s nuclear fears throughout the war in an effort to undermine Western support for Ukraine and to slow weapons deliveries, a tactic that seems to have worked.

And in recent weeks the drumbeat has intensified, with some well-connected Russian strategic analysts and think tank experts openly proclaiming the “necessity” for Moscow to carry out a preemptive tactical nuclear strike on a NATO country, like Poland — to avoid defeat in the war on Ukraine and to revive Western terror of Russia’s nuclear might.

Since the Wagner rebellion, Sergei Karaganov, a former Kremlin adviser and influential Russian political scientist, has doubled down on calls for Moscow to do so. In an earlier article last month headlined, “A Difficult but Necessary Decision,” Karaganov argued the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike on Russia, and nuclear Armageddon, “can be reduced to an absolute minimum.”

No sane American president would put the United States at risk by “sacrificing conditional Boston for conditional Poznań,” he wrote, referring to a city in Poland.

A hawkish Moscow-based military analyst, Dmitry Trenin, supported Karaganov, arguing that “an unambiguous — and no longer verbal — signal should be sent” to Washington.

“The possibility of using nuclear weapons in the current conflict should not be hidden,” he wrote in an essay, calling for the revision of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, which limits the use of nuclear weapons to cases where Russia’s existence is threatened. Both essays were published by influential Russian foreign policy think tank, the Foreign Policy Research Foundation.

Trenin lamented that Russia’s deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus — which Putin says will be completed by year end — had caused no visible alarm in Western capitals.

Karaganov’s essays have a messianic tone that reflect Putin’s zealous view of his place in history, solving what Moscow likes to call “the Ukraine problem,” a reference to an independent, democratic nation choosing a pro-Europe path on Russian borders.

He argues nuclear weapons were invented by God to revive mankind’s fear of Armageddon, insisting, “That fear needs to be revived.” He sees Russia as “chosen by history” to destroy the “Western yoke,” and “finally free the world.”

Many Russian nuclear arms experts gasped in horror at the calls from Karaganov and Trenin. One, Ivan Timofeev, called it “extremely dangerous.”

Three experts from the Center for International Security writing in Kommersant newspaper, Alexei Arbatov, Konstantin Bogdanov and Dmitry Stefanovich, called the idea that Washington would not strike back “highly doubtful and likely erroneous.” [Continue reading…]