The Nuclear Game That Will Never End

Markets aren’t really buying into Putin’s vague nuclear threats. Putin’s most recent announcement that Moscow may add “preventive nuclear strikes” to its military doctrine likewise has not been taken as a direct threat, but rather as part of a game of nuclear words bandied about to keep the fear factor alive. Some “analytical” magazines are keen to warn that we should not assume Putin will remain a “rational actor” if his regime faces collapse. There are few rational actors in this world, however, and even those “irrational” actors are not irrational enough to push the nuclear button, which foreshadows the end of the game. 

Even a nuclear strike on Ukraine would result in a response from NATO that Russia could not handle. Nuclear is, as such, off the table. Nor is the Russian regime facing collapse, as much as Western media enjoys suggesting their desired outcome. And still, the Western media continues to focus on Moscow’s losses in Ukraine and the potential for this to lead to the total collapse of the regime. Last week, we noted that Moscow’s war propaganda machine had changed its tune and that the front lines in Ukraine are no longer the focus. This notion continues to elude the talking heads most vocal about the wartime narrative. 

Putin is nothing if not adaptable–and very quickly so. If he is losing the current game, his machine can be efficiently and effectively retooled to create a new game, while the rest of the world plays catchup. Moscow’s media machine is masterful at new narratives. 

In the meantime, the U.S. nuclear deterrent system remains supreme. When it comes to counting nuclear warheads, the devil is in the details. While Russia may have a larger stockpile of nuclear warheads (the largest in the world), there is a difference between tactical and strategic nukes. Russia’s “largest” stockpile is because of smaller tactical nukes, not strategic weapons - a more devastating category in which the U.S. dominates.