Ukraine wants to use a dirty bomb to provoke an escalation in the fight against Russia, the Kremlin claims. However, military experts agree that in reality it is the other way around. Because Russia could solve several problems at the same time with a “dirty bomb”.
Because things are not going as well as Russia would like on the battlefield, the Kremlin is trying other means. Since the beginning of the war, this has also included completely unfounded allegations intended to justify Russia’s escalation in the neighboring country. Nazis who supposedly rule Ukraine. Or biological weapons that the Ukrainians are developing together with the USA in secret laboratories. Now Ukraine is reportedly planning to use a “dirty bomb”. This is what Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu recently said in telephone calls to his counterparts in the USA, Great Britain, France and Turkey. The Russian military would then only have one option: A nuclear strike for defense, Shoigu has threatened.
“I think the point here is first of all to create confusion and chaos,” says Carlo Masala from the Bundeswehr University in Munich in the “Stern” podcast “Ukraine – the situation”. The military expert names various possible reasons behind the statements about the “dirty bomb”. It could also be that Russia is planning a “false flag action” that Ukraine is being blamed for, “in order then, from a Russian perspective, to let this war legally escalate again.”
In a dirty bomb, radioactive material is mixed into the normal explosive. This can be anything that radiates: nuclear waste, the remains of a nuclear weapon, or even slightly radioactive material that is normally used in hospitals. A “dirty bomb” has a much lower explosive power than an atomic bomb. Unlike a nuclear weapon, there is no nuclear fission in the explosion. In this case, the radiant material is “only” an accessory.
Exactly how much damage a “dirty bomb” does depends on many factors. How much radioactive material is mixed with conventional explosives? What is the weather like at the time of ignition? Where does the bomb detonate? The possible consequences of such an explosion are difficult to assess, says expert Masala, but warns against underestimating them. “There would be a certain degree of local contamination. The population would inhale the radioactive dust that was raised in the contaminated region, and the risk of cancer would increase. When it rains, the dust would be bound and would stick to buildings and streets for a long time.”
However, the exact damage caused by a “dirty bomb” is also difficult to assess because it has never been used successfully in world history. In any case, a “dirty bomb” cannot be compared with an atomic bomb, explains Scott Roecker of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit organization from the USA. And on the battlefield, such a weapon is of no great use anyway, says the nuclear expert. “They’re more psychological weapons. If you want to intimidate people, that’s the kind of weapon you use. Because it’s a relatively small blast, the radiation might spread over a few blocks, but not over a very large area. On the battlefield, the bomb is of very limited use, if any.”
Atomic bombs have been dropped twice in world history, both times by the United States. In the Second World War, in August 1945, in the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
With its allegations, the Kremlin could provoke a third deployment: If Moscow detonates a “dirty bomb” and blames the Ukrainians for the crime, from the Russian point of view the inhibition threshold for using nuclear weapons would drop and the world would be brought closer to a nuclear war. Military expert Masala brings up an even lower-threshold escalation option. “Possibly that would be a good excuse for the Russian Federation to blow up the dam and flood Kherson.”
If Russia actually blamed Ukraine for using a dirty bomb, that would solve several problems at once, from the Russian perspective: Russia would no longer be the aggressor, but the victim. Moscow could then issue an ultimatum to Kyiv to accept a ceasefire on Russia’s terms. Otherwise, they threaten to use a nuclear weapon in order to retaliate.
From the Russian point of view, this is perhaps the only way to temporarily freeze the war and stabilize the shattered army. It is also possible that Russia assumes that the West will withdraw its support for Ukraine in the event of increased nuclear threats. President Putin has been toying with the “German Angst” in particular for some time, with success at times, Carlo Masala knows. “It would be the subliminal signal from the Russian Federation, so to speak, that they are quite ready to break the nuclear taboo. Then we would indeed have a new situation.”
Russia could speculate that the West will stop supporting Ukraine for fear of a nuclear escalation. The Russian maneuver is “too transparent” for that, writes the US political scientist Tom Nichols in an analysis for the “Atlantic”.
Carlo Masala sees things differently. Even in the case of obvious false flag actions, the West would have to spend a long time searching for evidence. “Think of MH70, the plane that was shot down, which to this day many people believe, based on Russian propaganda, was not shot down by Russia. It would make it difficult for the West to react. It would take time for the country to react could, because you need hard evidence first.”
A reaction from the West would at least be delayed, Masala expects. According to the politics professor, this would probably be done with conventional weapons. “That’s the line that the US and NATO generally have in mind should Russia escalate nuclear.”
Perhaps Putin doesn’t care how the West reacts and he wants to use a possible false flag action anyway to strengthen his power in his own country. Putin’s only concern is that enough Russians believe him, Russia expert Tom Nichols suspects in the “Atlantic”. But this plan also harbors risks: it could increase fears of a nuclear war in Russia. That would harm Putin and make his false flag action boomerang.
