Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your assessment of the Kursk Oblast incursion by Ukrainian forces into Russian Federation territory?

Rick Rosner: It appears that they have seized approximately 400 square miles of Russian land, which is relatively minor given the vast expanse of Russia, the largest country in the world. The territories captured hold no significant strategic value. However, the mere fact of such an incursion has surprised Russia.

This development pales in comparison to the extent of Ukrainian territory that Russia has taken. Russia currently controls a strip of land as long as California, encompassing the entire eastern side of Ukraine, which spans approximately 800 miles and is between 50 and 100 miles wide. In total, Russia has likely seized over 50,000 square miles of Ukraine, while Ukraine’s gains in Russia amount to only 400 square miles—a ratio of 100 to 1.

One may hope that this development destabilizes Russian forces, enabling Ukraine to reclaim some of the eastern regions currently under Russian occupation. However, I have not observed any signs indicating that this is occurring. Have you?

Jacobsen: Russia remains deeply entrenched in its positions. The most significant aspect of this situation is its historical context; this is the first time since World War II that the territory of the Russian Federation has been invaded in such a manner. This is unprecedented in the modern era, predating your time and mine. The public reaction, particularly among the elites in the Kremlin, remains to be seen.

Rosner: Kursk, a city approximately 60 kilometres (or around 35 miles) from the current Ukrainian position, has roughly 440,000 people. While some small towns within the 400 square miles that Ukraine has occupied are under Ukrainian control, it is uncertain whether Ukrainian forces can advance as far as Kursk. Achieving this would require tripling the depth of their penetration into Russian territory. While such a development seems unlikely in the immediate future, if it were to occur, it could provoke a much stronger reaction in Russia, given the significance of Kursk as a city.

I would assume that the Ukrainian forces are conducting themselves with propriety during this occupation. Unlike Russian forces, who have been reported to commit atrocities, such as running over civilians with tanks, engaging in acts of rape, and committing murder, I believe the Ukrainians are mindful of their position as the aggrieved party in this conflict and would be careful not to undermine that by engaging in similar behaviour.

Jacobsen: The broader context is that the international community has overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s full-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine. That remains the fundamental issue. Nonetheless, it seems there is a certain level of support for Ukraine’s modest territorial gains within Russia. Potentially.

Rosner: So, yeah. I mean, though, Putin responded with a bizarre nuclear threat. You know, he talked about tactical nukes, and yesterday, I argued that there is no such thing— a nuke is a nuke. It makes a massive explosion that is going to, you know, kill everyone within most of a square kilometre, which is not a small amount of land. However, he made this strange nuclear threat with that nuclear plant Russia is occupying.

Rosner: You mean Zaporizhzhia? The nuclear plant in Zaporizhzhia?

Jacobsen: Yes, that is it. Zaporizhzhia’s nuclear plant. It is shut down.

Rosner: He had Russian forces pile a bunch of flammable materials under one of the cooling towers and set it on fire. So it looks like the cooling tower is on fire and emitting dirty smoke. The tweet suggested it might be tire smoke because tires burn and produce dirty smoke.

It is a bizarre gesture. It is like saying, “This is what it would look like if your nuclear plant were melting down.” However, I am sure the point he was trying to make is that if you keep moving further into Russia, the threat of nukes remains on the table.

Rosner: This is somewhat ironic because Ukraine used to be a nuclear power. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had Soviet nukes stationed on its territory as a deterrent if the Soviet Union went to war with the rest of Europe. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine still had a stockpile of nukes. Russia was not able to reclaim them immediately after the Soviet Union fell. I do not know how many they had in Ukraine—dozens, I assume—enough to devastate Europe or Russia, depending on who got hold of them.

And the deal was that Ukraine would give the nukes back to, I guess, Russia, and in return, Europe and the international community promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. Is that accurate?

Jacobsen: Yes, something like that. So it is ironic that now Ukraine is being threatened with nukes after giving up its own.

Rosner: Right. However, we are still far from that scenario. You know better than I do. Are you seriously worried about Russia setting off a small nuclear explosion?

Jacobsen: A Belgian general who is a friend and a colleague. He thinks those threats are genuinely alarming, so I take that seriously.

Rosner: Yes, I agree. It is scary. Moreover, as I have mentioned before, I have read about U.S. and Russian nuclear strategies, which have existed for about 70 years. Russia detonated its first nuke in 1948 or 1949. So, we are approaching 75 years of this evolved deterrent strategy known as mutually assured destruction. Both the U.S. and Russia have enough nukes that if one country launched an attack, both would be destroyed.

There is no way to stop nuclear missiles if dozens are launched between countries. Even intercepting one or two is highly challenging. We have only 44 intercept missiles, each with a limited chance of success. Russian missiles are MIRVed, meaning they can split into multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles. One missile could split into four, five, or six warheads, making them nearly impossible to stop.

For 70 years, we have lived under the threat of mutually assured destruction. This book, Nuclear War by Annie Jacobson, highlights how precarious and prone that system is to catastrophic error. There have been false alarms that nearly led to nuclear launches. Still, fortunately, restraint from individuals in the command structure prevented disaster. Even without Putin’s threats, nukes are terrifying.

Rosner: Absolutely.

Rick Rosner, American Comedy Writer, www.rickrosner.org

Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Independent Journalist, www.in-sightpublishing.com

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.

Photo by Sam Korovich on Unsplash