Feb 29, 2024
POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
In a fascinating report, Max Seddon and Chris Cook of the Financial Times reveal how Russia might use nuclear weapons to roll back Chinese aggression. Their story, built off of leaked secret documents, confirms Russia’s deep and longstanding concern that a revitalized China might try to annex Russia’s eastern territories.
Given that China and Russia declared a friendship “without limits,” a few years ago, the prospect of a nuclear exchange between the two neighbors may seem unlikely to a casual Western observer. But Russia is acutely aware that border friendships can change quickly. The last time China and the Soviet Union signed a friendship treaty, the two countries were, within twenty years, embroiled in a nasty border conflict.
China’s actions across Asia has shown the country has a long memory for past slights and long-standing territorial losses. Expansion-minded Chinese nationalists, coupled with China’s increasing contempt for Russian military weakness, are quite capable of harnessing China’s resentments over past defeats to turn on their diminished client state to the north.
Moscow knows this, and it is taking great pains to deter Chinese adventurism. Even with Russia’s Army overextending itself in Ukraine, Russia exercised nuclear-capable Iskander missiles twice last year in “regions bordering China.”
Concrete evidence of Russian plans for a nuclear response to Chinese border aggression reveals the extent of Russia’s concerns that China, in time, may begin staking a claim to Russia’s lightly-populated eastern territories, and reaching out to champion Russia’s long-ignored citizens of Asian descent. Interestingly enough, the report seemed to describe Russia’s nuclear response scenarios as a last-ditch self-defense mechanism, largely targeting Chinese forces after they had entered Russian territory. And that’s grim—such a scenario suggests, at best, that Russia’s European-oriented military elites have few qualms about raining nuclear fallout on Russian citizens of Asian descent.
Tiny Triggers To Deter Surprise Attack
A reporting coup, the two intrepid Financial Times reporters gained access to “29 secret Russian military files drawn up between 2008 and 2014.” The documents included “scenarios for war-gaming and presentations for naval officers, which discuss operating principles for the use of nuclear weapons.”
They discovered that the potential conditions for Russia’s employment of nuclear weapons was very low. Basic response triggers included “the destruction of 20 per cent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines, 30 per cent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more cruisers,” or a range of other land-based targets.
These are very low numbers. Today, Russia only fields 11 ballistic missile submarines. The idea that losing two—or twenty percent—puts Russia’s anti-China anxiety in sharp relief. With 17 nuclear powered attack submarines in service, the loss of five would spark a nuclear attack. Compared to the number of nuclear submarines American planners expect to lose in a Taiwan scenario, Russia’s response triggers are very, very low.
Rather than being some indication of a fancy and deliciously complicated strategic posture—something Western non-proliferation experts seem to love exploring—the numbers suggest a far less complex defensive strategy. The documents indicate, more than a decade ago, Russia was doing a lot of hard thinking on how to deter a surprise attack from China.
The strategic documents date back to 2014, and the retaliation-triggering numbers seem to work. In 2015, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence thought that Russia was likely only operating two Dolgorukiy class nuclear ballistic missiles submarines in the Pacific, along with about six nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile-shooting submarines. With Russia’s naval bases all within easy reach of China’s then-growing medium-range missile arsenal, spelling out the consequences of a surprise Chinese effort to decapitate Russia’s Pacific Fleet seems sound—and it might be something for America’s strategists to take to heart.
Today, Russia’s nuclear deterrence may prove less effective than it was a decade ago. As I have written before, with Russia weak and distracted by European adventures, China has a real opportunity to effectively annex Russia’s lightly-held Eastern territories without firing a shot.
All the components for an abrupt Chinese land-grab are in place—for years, China has allowed resentments to simmer all along Russia’s long Chinese border. To many Chinese, Vladivostok, Russia’s administrative link to the Pacific, isn’t known by its Russian name—the city’s ancient Chinese name is still widely used. Economic and cultural ties to China are becoming awfully hard to ignore.
The clock for an administrative realignment of Russia’s East is ticking. China is rapidly expanding their nuclear forces, making Russia’s weapons far less of a deterrent. And, as the ethnic and economic balance continues to shift, Russia’s European-focused ruling elite grows weaker by the day. In time, China may simply appropriate Russia’s Crimean playbook, employing similar tactics to sidestep Moscow’s hopes of staking Russia’s territorial integrity on an often-unreliable nuclear deterrent.
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website.
Mafia land’s war in Ukraine has vastly weakened the country in every respect. Their biggest “friend”, China, is fully aware of this. Threatening with nukes will have no effect on the Chinese because both sides also have the concept of MAD. There is never a winner in a nuclear war. It’ll be either a total destruction of both sides or mafia land must accept the loss of Siberia or parts of it and the rest survives. I doubt that the corrupt luxury-loving elite in mafia land will trade their fabulous mansions, yachts, private planes et al, for a life in an atomic bunker just to keep Siberia, which will be lost in a way anyhow.
There is also the question of how many mafia nukes still work, knowing the extreme corruption in the crap hole and the other priorities the country followed. Nukes and their carriers must be maintained, just like everything else in humanity’s repertoire of technical knickknacks.
I’m sure that the Chinese know all of this and much more and will act accordingly, despite the “no limits friendship”. We’ll see what will happen in the future as the mafia military continues to erode away, bit by bit. Mafia land has every reason to be worried about the dragon beneath its soft belly.
One more thought, regarding friendships between dictatorships; there was such a case between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But, we know how that ended.
In 2015, Jinping came for a state visit to the UK. He met the Queen and referring to our awkward complaints about his appalling treatment of Tibet, declared “what’s past is prologue” (Shakespeare’s The Tempest) and the dawn of a new special relationship.
It was all bullshit of course and we are still the best of enemies.
It could well be that Jinping has the same dislike and contempt for putlerstan that he has for democratic countries.
He is a conniving snake. Putler is a fool for trusting him, although I hope to see the results soon. The chinese have a lot of patience, but the day of reconning for mafia land is on the horizon.
I think any threat that keeps Putin off balance and nervous is a really good thing.
I fully agree. Appeasement never worked and never will.
“Compared to the number of nuclear submarines American planners expect to lose in a Taiwan scenario, Russia’s response triggers are very, very low.”
Hmm, wait a moment, there’s a big difference between “hunters” and “boomers”. The US may expect to lose attack subs of the Los Angeles class and the like, but not SSBNs and SSGNs of the Ohio class. If the US would lose even one of those in a Chinese attack, we can be certain that this would immediately lead to raising DefCon. Because this would point to a deliberate attempt to reduce second strike capability, a very alarming move in the delicate balance of deterrence between nuclear powers. So, please, not all nuclear submarines are alike, we have to distinguish between those of the regular fleet and those of the nuclear armed strategic forces! 🤨
So Putin can’t subdue gutsey Ukraine with only a fraction of the population and of Western military technology.
Yeah they need to be worried about China with a huge army and economy.
sooner or later China is going to realize they can move against the US and our allies in the Pacific and possibly lose half their fleet in a day.
OR
They attack Russia and take Vladivostok in weeks easily.
Yup, for Russia, that means back to the bad old days of Tsushima and Port Arthur again. Hail to the new tsar, same old loser as the last one! /irony
🙄
I can imagine that the chinese have and are studying both options down to the tiniest detail, Mr. Marcodian, and the conclusion probably is that taking Siberia is the easier venture.
Although there is plenty to be concerned about china, it would be almost poetic to see mafialand get burned by the chicoms using the rashist’s own playbook.
Aye, Sir Bill, but this would be a very guilty pleasure! I would be very interested in a novel about that, like Tom Clancy’s “Red Storm Rising” of the 80s, though. 🤔
Red Dawn two (the movie) was s’posed to be about China, but they edited it it portray NK. But interesting novel reference.
I would even drink a bottle of champagne to celebrate such a scenario, Sir Bill.