Vladimir Putin's approval of the updated principles of Russia's nuclear strategy has sparked a lively debate among experts and politicians around the world. The document refers to the expansion of the conditions under which Russia can use nuclear weapons. This applies to both nuclear and non-nuclear attacks if they threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of Russia or its allies. In addition, aggression by any member state of a military coalition against Russia will be regarded as an attack by the entire coalition.
Against this background, there are different opinions of analysts. Some consider these statements an attempt at political pressure, while others pay attention to potential risks.
the update of the doctrine came amid reports that the United States allowed Ukraine to use long-range weapons to strike Russian territory. Moscow has repeatedly responded to this with harsh statements, emphasizing that such actions can be regarded as direct participation of NATO countries in the conflict in Ukraine.
Earlier, Putin made a statement that allowing Washington to authorize such strikes would actually mean NATO's involvement in military action.
The US government sees changes in Russia's nuclear strategy as a signal for the potential expansion of conflict zones. Washington condemns these statements, noting that Russia increases the risks of a global nuclear crisis. At the same time, the United States continues to provide military support to Ukraine, including the transfer of modern weapons.
Experts in the comments of UNN assessed the level and reliability of the nuclear threat
Taras Zagorodny, a political analyst, notes that the real probability of Russia using nuclear weapons now looks low:
"If the Russians were sure that tactical nuclear weapons would solve their problems in Ukraine, they would have used them long ago. But all the nuclear powers, including China, are categorically against it"
According to Zahorodnyi, even if Putin takes such a step, Russia risks facing a conventional NATO response. Such a scenario has been repeatedly discussed by Western military officials, including former U.S. Army Commander for Europe Ben Hodges.
What they write in doctrines is more just talk than reality. Ukraine has already violated their previous doctrine 20 times.
However, the political scientist admits that the risk of using nuclear weapons cannot be completely ruled out due to the unpredictability of the Russian leadership.
Zagorodny also told what steps Ukraine should take to ensure its national interests in the face of growing nuclear tensions.
"Demand more weapons from our partners, in particular systems that can intercept missiles, such as those of the United States, which have elements of them in Romania and Poland.
The political scientist also emphasizes the need for Ukraine to remind of the Budapest Memorandum:
The United States promised Ukraine the inviolability of territories after . This document is valid, and you need to be constantly reminded about it. They are well aware of this, but, of course, they try to partially avoid fulfilling their obligations. No country wants to strain itself too much
The expert added that politicians everywhere act on similar principles, and also recalled that at the beginning of the war they did not even want to provide either equipment, HIMARS, or the ability to strike at the territory of Russia, but later changed their decision.
Taras Semenyuk, another Ukrainian political scientist, believes that the current nuclear rhetoric is more of a tool of psychological pressure:
I don't think we can talk about approaching a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, not as a means of attack. This is actually the last argument that a state can use to stop its fall or prevent an attack. The world is approaching nuclear blackmail rather than the actual use of nuclear weapons. I want everything to be possible. I do not say this 100%, but there is always a percentage of risk that someone may not be able to withstand and use at least tactical nuclear weapons that can be used in the nearest territory. It is still difficult to talk about a specific threat, but the fact that nuclear rhetoric appears in the information space is indisputable
According to the political scientist, such rhetoric is used not only to achieve political goals, but also for psychological pressure: to intimidate society, cause panic and restrain European elites. This is especially true in a democratic world, where people can demand that politicians avoid any threats.
The change in doctrines is obvious. For example, the Russian doctrine states that nuclear weapons can be used in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of the country or in the event of an attack on its territory. However, according to the Russian interpretation, attacks occur every day — at least in the form of drones. Therefore, now we are not talking about the real use of nuclear weapons, but about their use as an instrument of pressure. Moreover, one of the main allies of the Russian Federation — China — publicly opposes its use
Semenyuk added that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to protect itself from a nuclear threat on its own. We can only rely on collective security, whether within NATO or through international support for air defense systems.
But even the best systems, such as Patriot or THAAD, cannot fully protect against nuclear warheads.
"However, in an alliance with other states, it is quite possible to ensure protection"
The political scientist also answered what it means to modernize nuclear weapons in other countries. After all, in the context of the growing nuclear threat caused by both the actions of Russia and China, the United States is revising its nuclear strategy. As Richard S. Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense of the United States, notes, the world is faced with a situation where several states are simultaneously modernizing their arsenals.
The United States has already taken steps to strengthen its own nuclear capabilities. In particular, the US Department of defense is developing a new B61-13 nuclear bomb, which will become part of the updated arsenal. In addition, the readiness of nuclear submarines is growing.
"Modernization of the nuclear arsenal is a common practice. Nuclear weapons, like any equipment, have an expiration date, so they need to be updated. This is a normal process, similar to changing the oil in a car. Its goal is to maintain the Arsenal's combat capability, not prepare for launch. Whether Russia, China, or the United States do this is just a matter of maintenance, and not a signal of a real threat," explains Taras Semenyuk.
Political scientist Maksym Yali draws attention to the fact that the world has indeed become closer to a nuclear catastrophe.
"For the first time in history, a medium — range ballistic missile was used, albeit not an intercontinental, but the main purpose of which is to carry a nuclear charge. So yes, the world is one step closer to a nuclear catastrophe. Especially considering Putin's statements and his demonstration of readiness to take such a step if, from his point of view, he is forced to do so.
At the same time, the expert emphasizes that the escalation is an initiative of the Kremlin itself. The West is responding to its actions, but in the Russian narrative, this looks like raising the stakes, to which Putin is forced to respond.
"If he decides to use tactical nuclear weapons, it will be against Ukraine, not Western countries. After all, the West is either a nuclear power, like Great Britain or France, especially since they are members of NATO, which are under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, whose potential allows them to completely destroy Russia. Therefore, the threat concerns primarily Ukraine.
The expert recalled cases since 2022 when Ukraine carried out a successful counteroffensive in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. Then CIA Director William Burns said that the threat of Russia using nuclear weapons was "more than real.
"These risks remain today, but in the short term, until the end of the US presidential election and Donald Trump takes office, Putin is unlikely to launch a nuclear strike. Unfortunately, there is no real military threat of defeat for Russia yet, as we assess the situation on the battlefield. And the long-range missiles that our partners provide to Ukraine in their current volumes are not able to radically change the status quo."
The main lesson for Ukraine is the need to develop its own defense potential.
"We should rely on ourselves - this is the main conclusion from the last 10 years of Russian aggression. Our partners, including the United States and the United Kingdom, failed to fulfill their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014 after the occupation of Crimea. Moreover, the then US President Barack Obama vetoed the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. Even then, it was necessary to develop our own military-industrial complex, to create ballistic missiles, using the potential that Ukraine inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union."
The expert notes that Russia attacks those who are weaker. Ukraine could have avoided an invasion if the Kremlin had seen an adequate military response.
" if Russia understood that Ukraine was capable of responding even within the limits of what we showed in 2022, it would not have attacked. Lesson number one in this unfair world: the weak are beaten. Especially in the context of the collapse of the world order based on international law. Now the right of force dominates."
The decline of international law and the collapse of the world order that began after the Caribbean Crisis are creating a new reality.
"After the nuclear crisis of the twentieth century, the world began to develop international law to prevent conflicts. But now this order is collapsing, and the one who is strong is acting. He dictates the rules. The support of partners is important, but as we saw in 2014 and 2022, no one will risk their own security for the sake of Ukraine, especially if it comes to a nuclear war.
Ukraine must take these realities into account, develop its own defense industry and strengthen its defense capabilities in cooperation with partners.
Reaction of France and Britain to the nuclear doctrine
France does not consider the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine announced by Vladimir Putin to be a serious threat. This was stated by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot.
"This is just rhetoric. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by these threats," he told Cnews. Barro stressed that Putin has been regularly using nuclear blackmail over the past two and a half years to try to cause concern among NATO countries.
The minister also noted that the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine did not come as a surprise, as it had been announced earlier.
Barro repeated French President Emmanuel Macron's call for the Russian leader to return "to common sense.
British Prime Minister Cyrus Starmer reacted to the update of Russia's nuclear doctrine, stressing that this would not affect London's decision to support Ukraine.
Starmer noted that Russia's rhetoric is irresponsible, but it will not be able to stop the UK's efforts to help the Ukrainian people.
In addition, he drew attention to Putin's absence from the G20 summit for the third year in a row, calling him "the author of his own exile" because of actions that isolated Russia in the international arena.
China's Response
China has called on countries to remain calm after updating Russia's nuclear doctrine. Beijing stressedthat to end Russia's war against Ukraine , it is necessary to conduct dialogue and consultations.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian noted that all parties should refrain from aggravating the situation and work together to reduce risks through negotiations.
He stressed that China's position remains unchanged: Beijing stands for de-escalation and a peaceful solution to the conflict. Lin Jian also added that China will continue to play a constructive role in this process.
Why does China have an important influence on Russia?
Russia may refrain from using nuclear weapons due to several factors related to China's position:
· China's geopolitical influence: China is one of Russia's biggest strategic partners, and its support is important for Moscow, especially in the face of international isolation due to the war in Ukraine.
· economic dependence on China: Russia is highly dependent on China in the economic sphere, in particular in energy trade and finance. China has the potential to significantly increase pressure on Russia by restricting trade relations or changing the terms of cooperation if Moscow violates basic security principles, such as nuclear escalation.
- Risk of global escalation: China, as a nuclear power, has a great influence on international stability. If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons, it could lead to a global escalation in which China will be involved.
· Chinese diplomacy: China may resort to diplomatic channels to dissuade Russia from using nuclear weapons, calling for de-escalation through negotiations.
At the same time, China maintains significant economic ties with Europe and the United States, and a nuclear conflict could have unintended consequences for its economy. In addition, the strategic interests in maintaining stability in Asia and the world as a whole should not be rejected.