Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, said Russian President Vladimir Putin could resort to weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and tactical nuclear weapons, if he fails to do so. was “victory of conventional forces” in eastern Ukraine.
“Those are very serious risks that the Biden administration seems to be discounting so randomly,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Thursday.
The US strategy seems to be to let the war go on to make “Russia bleed” and hope for a regime change in Moscow, but Ferguson thinks this is a “very dangerous” strategy.
Over the past week, Russian forces have retreated from areas around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv as Moscow shifts focus Sergei Rudskoy, deputy chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, called the “complete liberation” of the Donbas region.
Donbas in eastern Ukraine is the site of two breakaway regions where Ukrainian forces and Moscow-backed separatists have been fighting since Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
If in the next few weeks Russian forces are too exhausted to win a decisive victory in the Donbas, Ferguson said Putin could find himself in an “extremely difficult” position without a clear motivation. .
He noted that Putin has shown himself a willingness to inflict “terrible destruction” with conventional forces such as cruise missiles. Russia holds the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear warheads, followed by the United States.
However, Phillips O’Brien of the University of St. Andrews said that Putin’s use of WMD is “hardly, if not impossible”.
The use of WMDs could lead to even greater support for Ukraine in the international arena for weapons and sanctions against Russia, O’Brien said, adding it is unclear what those weapons will be. help Russia achieve its political goals.
“They can kill people in some cities – but how does that help them win?” he added.
O’Brien also said that there is a “good chance” Moscow will not make and keep southern and eastern Ukraine.
However, Putin’s goal, Ferguson said, is not necessarily to annex Ukraine, but instead to ensure that the country’s attempt to become a “viable western-oriented democracy” fails. .
Western reaction
Policymakers in Washington and Europe, who have insisted there will be no military action against Russia, will face a “huge dilemma” if Putin escalates, Ferguson said. with nuclear or chemical weapons, which he says is “really very likely.”
So they face two “very terrible” choices, he said.
“One, do nothing more than continue to supply conventional weapons once nuclear weapons have been used, or alternatively, take military action and risk escalation,” he said.
“This is a fundamental matter of strategy,” added Ferguson. “If you keep saying you’re not going to take military action, you’re actually encouraging the other side to escalate in the belief that you’ll always turn your back.”
On Thursday, the G-7 foreign ministers warned of “any threat or use” of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
“Any use of such weapons by Russia is unacceptable and leads to serious consequences,” the ministers said in a statement.
With the nuclear-armed powers on the brink of conflict and Russia saying it is at war with the West, Ferguson sees this as a “much more dangerous” situation than most people assume. expensive.
“That’s why, although I don’t think we’re going to bring World War III, we can’t completely rule it out,” Ferguson said.
