Diane Francis. Mar 9

Veteran columnist writes about power, money, tech, and corruption in America and the world at dianefrancis.substack.com

A 2,000-word series of Twitter posts allegedly made by a Russian FSB (Secret Police) whistleblower says that the war is bogged down, 10,000 Russian soldiers have died, and Putin’s next strategy is nuclear blackmail. One chilling post said: “Is there a possibility of a localized nuclear strike (in Ukraine)? Yes. Not for any military objectives. Such a weapon won’t help with the breach of the defenses. But with a goal of scaring everyone else (The West)…Naryshkin [Director of Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia] and his SVR [intel and espionage service] are digging the ground to prove that Ukraine was secretly building nuclear weapons. F#$%.”

Russian-controlled Enerhodar in south-central Ukraine, north of Crimea, the world’s largest nuclear facility

Russia’s intent, claims the tweets, is to claim Ukraine had a nuke in order to justify a tactical nuclear attack on one of its cities. This is alarming, if true, but — in the murky world of disinformation and psyops (psychological operations) — verification that this is from truly inside the FSB is impossible. However, it was leaked through the credible, Russian anti-corruption website, Gulagu.net, run by a Russian human rights activist. It was then examined by an expert with Bellingcat, an esteemed investigative group, who said his FSB contacts said they had “no doubt it was written by a colleague”.

Even so, it still could have been planted by Ukrainian info warriors to frighten NATO into a no-fly zone or other action, or it could have been planted by Russian cyber terrorists to scare the West and Ukraine into capitulation.

The venerable Times in London and the sensationalist Daily Mail reported from this series of tweets and the communication has made the rounds in intelligence circles. But no matter its origin, the details are designed to absolutely terrify the West. What’s known is that Russia captured the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station after a firefight and has been “digging” around there. The Station, in southeastern Ukraine, is the largest nuclear plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world. It was built by the Soviet Union near the City of Enerhodar, on the southern shore of the Dnieper River.

Is a nuclear incident what Putin meant when he told France’s President Macron “that the worst is yet to come”? Is this why on March 9 President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine and that he is open to “compromise” on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent just before unleashing the invasion?

The specter of nuclear involvement is also analyzed in a hair-raising piece in New Eastern Ukrainian magazine whose authors posit that nuclear blackmail is the third phase of Putin’s war. “The besieged Ukrainian government continues to request that the West set up a no-fly zone over the country. Whilst many leaders fear that this action may lead to a wider conflict, inaction will ultimately allow Putin to use nuclear blackmail against both Ukraine and the West,” writes its authors. They say that Phase One is the current ground-based blitzkrieg that aimed to capture major cities in days, overthrow the government and install a puppet regime. Its failure thus far is why Phase Two is the current “scorched earth” strategy of indiscriminate bombing aimed at civilians and infrastructure.

“Hence, we have seen airstrikes on residential areas with unguided heavy bombs and missiles (including the use of prohibited weapons like cluster bombs), as well as the shelling of civilian targets with heavy artillery. These tactics are also often used to target cultural heritage sites. Russia’s contravention of the rules of war and international conventions is not a coincidence,” wrote Valerii Pekar is a co-founder of the Nova Kraina Civic Platform and Mykhailo Wynnyckyj is an Associate Professor at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and Ukrainian Catholic University. “Indeed, it is part of the overall strategy of Russia’s forces. For example, a green corridor for the evacuation of civilians is announced and then these civilians, including children, are killed as they try to exit their destroyed cities. In the last few days, we have witnessed this tactic being used in the seaport of Mariupol and in the town of Irpin near Kyiv.”

“The second phase of the war will eventually end as the ground assault has been effectively halted. Putin said that he will not stop the war until Ukraine capitulates. But what if Ukraine will not capitulate? Russia’s scorched earth tactic only motivates the population further to do more to defend Ukraine to the last drop of blood,” they added. “A long war in its current form is impossible as the Russian forces have no broad fronts, no logistics, and no reserves. Inevitably, Putin will begin the third phase of the war: the nuclear blackmail of Europe.”

After the nuclear facility at Enrhodar was seized, they say, Russian state media put out fake stories that Ukraine didn’t really give up its military nuclear capability in the 1990s. This is not corroborated by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the disinformation is designed to provide a pretext for “nuclear escalation” in Ukraine. This could come in the form of an “accident” at a power plant which Russians will maintain was caused by Ukrainians as they prepared to use a nuclear weapon against Russia. This would be used to justify a “limited tactical nuclear strike on a Ukrainian city”.

They speculate that this would force NATO to step back from all of Eastern Europe and may also lead the West to force Ukraine to capitulate. If that happens, Putin will use the blackmail to go into Poland, the Baltics, and Finland. They argue that now is the time to save the world from this scenario by closing the sky over Ukraine or giving Western jets to Ukrainians. “We must stop Putin now to prevent a Third World War.”

The Washington Post published a piece about the dangers of nuclear deployment by expert James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The likelihood of a nuclear war, while still low, is rising. Putin’s unprovoked war of aggression has, so far at least, not played out as he might have hoped, and this nuclear threat is unlikely to change the war’s dynamics. If the conflict drags on, desperation could lead him to cross the nuclear threshold. Ukraine, the United States, and its NATO allies will have to try to create an off-ramp for Putin to avoid that catastrophic outcome.”

But the danger of nuclear escalation is real precisely because, as Rand Corp. analyst Samuel Charap put it, “the implications of an isolated, angry Putin presiding over a grinding, existential conventional war and an economy devastated by sanctions are really terrifying. The chances of his accepting `defeat’ are far lower than the chances he escalates dramatically.” He may believe that a limited nuclear attack would get both Ukraine and the West to back down.

There’s little reason to conclude at this point that the conflict will spiral into a nuclear event. But consider that just one month ago few of us believed that the slaughter and destruction we watch on television every day would be possible. Putin has brought us to the brink and he’s thoroughly ruthless.