Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we have been following the concerns of world leaders about the nuclear threat. Last week, the warning came from both William Burns of the US intelligence agency CIA and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky himself. Asked by a television station about the issue, Zelensky admitted he was annoyed by the issue. In his view, “all countries should be concerned,” he said. Burns had claimed days ago that the Russian government could use low-power nuclear weapons if it was desperate.

Burns was talking about what experts call “tactical weapons.” Unlike so-called “strategic” weapons, they have a shorter range and lower detonation density. They also have different delivery methods. They do not have an intercontinental range and have a less extensive destructive capability. Still, these are weapons, the use of which will not only cause serious damage to Ukraine, but also represent the beginning of a new phase in the conflict.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, the debate involves not just the size of a country’s arsenal, but above all its willingness to use it and what criteria it has adopted to do so. Not only does Russia have the largest stockpile of warheads in the world (estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000), it also guides its use according to a vague and imprecise doctrine. The country’s official documents speak of employment only in the face of “existential threat.” In this sense, they leave room for different narratives and interpretations about the risks affecting the survival of the State.

It is no accident that Western leaders, especially North Americans, have for several years defined the Russian criteria for the use of nuclear weapons based on the phrase “scaling it to reduce conflict.” It is the perception that the Putin government will be willing to use some of its tactical arsenal to launch one-off nuclear strikes as a way to ensure the eventual withdrawal of the adversaries and, as a result, force the other side to negotiate more favorable to the Russians. .

If approved, such a move would not only pose a higher risk to Ukrainian civilians, but would also pose two other things to keep in mind: 1) herald an unprecedented escalation in the conflict as pressure will be put on NATO to respond proportionately; and 2) the fatal blow to crown the already widespread crisis of multilateral institutions.

Nuclear weapons are considered the last frontier of global politics. Since at least 1945, international law has sought to restrict the use of such resources as much as possible. The expectation of countries that own these weapons is that they hold them for the simple fact that in doing so they imagine they would not be compelled to use them. This is the logic of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are not only a material but also a symbolic response to the security dilemma that exists in an anarchic world. When they are no longer viewed as just “another resource at our disposal” in this way, they not only inflict unprecedented harm to those who suffer from potential attacks, but also express serious violence against every act, thought and emotion in society. international system. They are thus the ultimate expression of human barbarism.