He doesn’t approve of direct military involvement and admits it could be counterproductive. For Vladimir Putin, a war other than victory is not acceptable. Given the situation on the battlefield, he had already redefined the success of his “special operation”, which would turn into political defeat if the conflict shifted to Russia. Rather than a nuclear attack. NATO wants to avoid this and not escalate the threat of using nuclear weapons, because then there would only be bad options. Even so, it is still real.
The threat of a nuclear attack is very high, Michal Smetana points out in an interview for Prostor X. The security analyst literally says: “If NATO were directly involved in the army, the chances of such a move increase. We don’t know how, I’m not able to say it as a percentage, because we have no way of calculating it, but in the logic of this strategic reasoning, we can count on it. and forcing opposing parties to the negotiating table was what was contained in the American nuclear doctrine adopted by former President Donald Trump.
The problem is not only that the small tactical weapons available to Russia can be likened to those of Hiroshima, but also that the degree of threat can be defined differently and, last but not least, that “the doctrine itself does not “It’s not something that’s carved in stone and when we have to rely on Vladimir Putin to follow suit. They don’t have to. If he just says that this preemptive action was the only way to save the Russia, one can imagine.
On the other hand, what most of us cannot imagine is the death of an order of magnitude more civilians than those who lose their lives in Ukraine. And even in terrible conditions. This would undoubtedly trigger the bombardment of the Russian nuclear arsenal, demanded by some voices. “It just came to our knowledge at the time. Anyone who’s ever studied nuclear strategy can’t say that seriously, and I’m very glad there are people in Washington right now who know very well. that this is nonsense. It could lead to the defeat of Russia, but at what cost”, believes Smetana. He sees the events in Mariupol, Izjum and other cities as a humanitarian catastrophe of terrible proportions, which will undoubtedly go down in history. “Without nuclear weapons, NATO has a theory of victory at great loss. In the case of nuclear weapons, it has it, provided we are able to accept losses of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions. When we studied Cold War documents, in the 1960s, American strategists tried to work with the possible theory of victory in a nuclear war. These theories exist, it’s not that they don’t, but they were at the level of suggesting that a hundred million deaths in the West is an acceptable option,” he explains.
According to him, Mariuopol should be conquered in the coming weeks, and if Russia succeeds, there will be increased activity in the Donbass region. Vladimir Putin set himself his new goal when he had to compromise on his maximalist and overambitious plans, which did not correspond to military means, nor to chosen tactics, nor to the preparation of a ground army. whose junior officers and soldiers did not know how far they would go, their morale and motivation also matched. “I don’t think that Russia will achieve anything significant in the logic of the offensive, either around kyiv or around Mykolaiv, on the contrary, I think that the Ukrainian counter-offensives will do relatively well there. well, rather maybe partial,” he surmised, adding that perhaps it could also happen at the diplomatic level.
Michal Smetana, a security analyst, explained why the Russian army must conquer Mariupol, what is its real strength, what can condemn the Ukrainians for the production of chemical and biological weapons, where the nation under President Zelenský is ready to go or when the operation reaches the culmination of the Institute of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University and also the coordinator of the Prague Peace Research Center.