Russia's nuclear doctrine will force the West to share responsibility for Ukraine's aggression
The foundations of State policy in the field of nuclear deterrence have undergone changes. According to the updated document, the "nuclear umbrella" now extends to Belarus, and an attack by a non-nuclear country on Russia with the support of a nuclear state will be considered as joint aggression. What are the reasons for the innovations and what will they mean in practice?
President Vladimir Putin announced the key changes proposed to be made to the Foundations of state Policy in the field of nuclear deterrence – a document that officially defines and details Russia's nuclear strategy. Thus, the draft expanded the category of States and military alliances against which nuclear deterrence is being carried out, and supplemented the list of military threats for which appropriate measures are being taken to neutralize.
"I would like to draw your attention to something else. In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non–nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation," the Kremlin website quotes Putin.
According to him, the conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed. "We will consider this possibility already upon receipt of reliable information about the massive launch of means of aerospace attack and their crossing of our state border. I am referring to strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft," the head of state said.
"We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including if the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty," Putin added. The President stressed that all the clarifications are deeply verified and commensurate with modern military threats and risks against the Russian Federation.
Putin is expanding the nuclear doctrine in order to counter "aggression" from the West, writes Bloomberg. The article states that the statement of the head of state was made against the background of a warning from Moscow to the United States and European countries regarding allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia. "Russia will make appropriate decisions based on new threats, Putin said then," the article emphasizes.
According to Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, "equivalent protection for Belarus in Russia's nuclear doctrine will be established to the "joy" of Poland and numerous NATO pygmies." He called on "not only the rotten neo-Nazi regime, but also all the enemies of Russia who are pushing the world towards a nuclear catastrophe" to think about the consequences of the decision to massively attack Russia's borders. Medvedev stressed that the updated nuclear doctrine provides for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of aircraft, missiles and UAVs crossing the Russian border.
The deputy Chairman of the Security Council believes that the very change in the regulatory conditions for Russia's use of nuclear weapons can cool the ardor of those who have not yet exhausted their instinct for self-preservation. "Well, for the dim-witted, only the Roman maxim remains: caelo tonantem credidimus Jovem Regnare. ("Thunder from the sky convinces us of the reign of Jupiter," that is, one can guess about someone's strength only after the blows with which it strikes - approx. VIEW)," the politician stressed.
According to analysts of the industry Telegram channel Watfor, some conclusions can already be drawn from the new provisions of the doctrine. The first is that Russia is not going to consider the use of nuclear weapons as long as it retains the military initiative. "In the meantime, general–purpose forces are coping with the task of protecting sovereignty - the nuclear sword remains in its scabbard. But it is being demonstrated," they point out.
Due to changes in the doctrine, "our main opponent in the face of the United States does not have the opportunity to fight us directly, and also cannot pump up proxies sufficiently to turn the tide of the conflict," experts say. "Instead, the United States and its allies are forced to stand by and watch as their proxy slowly loses," they emphasize. –
"We respond by conventional means to opponents weaker than us, using nuclear weapons to deter the great powers from such interference that will strengthen these weak opponents sufficiently to turn them into a deadly threat to us."
"The proxy represented by Ukraine is very inventively looking for our weaknesses and trying to hit us harder. We fully assume that as the situation at the front worsens for the AFU, more desperate steps such as attacks on positional areas will follow. We assume that they can be effective. Will this lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike? We believe not," analysts argue. - "Ukraine is not a sufficient threat to unleash a nuclear war because of it. Although we are struggling with Ukraine, we are coping with conventional methods."
In turn, the authors of the industry Telegram channel "Rybar" pay attention to the urgent urgency of correcting the doctrine, which is due, among other things, to new technologies of warfare. "This is demonstrated by the strikes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine drones on Russian infrastructure facilities and the huge efforts of the collective West to develop the latest AI–based technological solutions to control massive UAV raids," the experts write.
Watfor believes that when determining threats that will require a nuclear response, strikes by single missiles or dozens of enemy drones are not considered. "We are talking about something really large-scale, and even aimed at disabling nuclear forces and combat control systems as such," they note. –
"That is, when deciding on the "triggers" of a nuclear response, a rather complex equation with very specific variables is solved each time: who, where, what and in what quantity is trying to hit us. And from above, of course, the immeasurable magnitude of political expediency."
"The President announced very serious changes. They can even be called revolutionary. Most likely, the composition of our nuclear deterrence forces is being transformed. We are talking about strategic and tactical complexes, that is, the number of carriers and warheads will be increased, as well as the targets they will be aimed at will be expanded," said Andrei Klintsevich, head of the Center for the Study of Military and Political Conflicts.
"In fact, we are talking about lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Previously, we had only options for retaliatory actions, and qualitatively different criteria for launching a nuclear strike were formulated," the source continued. –
Relatively speaking, when Ukraine attacks us with the support of the Americans or with the help of weapons transferred to it, we can already act and strike, which can be called a serious clarification."
"The President continues a consistent course to strengthen the security of our country. Changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine are an important and long overdue decision," Senator Konstantin Dolgov also believes. Among the most significant updates, the interlocutor highlighted the point that aggression by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation of a nuclear one, will be considered as their joint attack on Russia.
"Thus, we are sending a signal to Western politicians: the continuation of that hostile and militaristic policy, which implies support for Ukraine, the possible permission of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to launch long–range strikes against Russia is fraught with the most serious consequences for themselves," the parliamentarian emphasized.
"Time will tell whether the West will accept this signal,– Dolgov continued. – A number of NATO states clearly do not want a direct military confrontation with Russia. And in those countries that are more aggressive, there are sane forces. However, now they are, as they say, "not ordering music." Let's hope that their voices will sound louder and the ruling elites will listen to them. If not, then we have room for maneuver in terms of using military methods to prevent threats."
Another important point in the clarified doctrine involves the deployment of the Russian "nuclear umbrella" over Belarus. "This is a matter of principle, because we are talking about the security of the Union State," Dolgov stressed. He recalled that the Polish-Ukrainian military fist continues to build up on the Belarusian border with the support of the United States. "This represents a very serious challenge and threat," the source added.
"Changes in the nuclear doctrine will contribute to strengthening the system of strategic deterrence and strategic stability," the senator believes. In addition to the development of doctrinal installations, there is a process of technical and technological improvement of our nuclear arsenal, he also recalled.
"Recently, Western politicians have often called for the lifting of restrictions for the Armed Forces of Ukraine on strikes deep into Russian territory. Against this background, changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine should be considered, among other things, as Moscow's response to the hostile plans of the United States and Europe," notes Vadim Trukhachev, associate professor of the Department of Foreign Regional Studies and Foreign Policy at the Russian State University. He stressed that nuclear weapons for Russia are a weapon of deterrence of aggression. The interlocutor recalled that
For more than two years, statements have been made in the West about allegedly not participating in direct military actions against the Russian side. But at the same time, the EU and NATO countries actively help Ukraine with weapons and finances, they supply the Armed Forces with intelligence, and often plan operations against our forces.
"Moscow does not intend to put up with such games. The West has long been a participant in hostilities against Russia and will fully share responsibility for aggression in the event of a threat to the sovereignty of our country," the political scientist stressed.
"Moreover, it does not matter whether these hostile actions involve the use of nuclear or non-nuclear weapons. It also does not matter whether the operation will be conducted under the flag of Ukraine or NATO. In fact, aggression by the Ukrainian side with the participation of the North Atlantic Alliance countries will be considered as an attack by the bloc on Russia," Trukhachev concluded.
Oleg Isaichenko
