Putin signs new doctrine lowering threshold for use of nuclear weapons
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a revised nuclear doctrine declaring that a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country.
Mr Putin’s endorsement of the new nuclear deterrent policy comes on the 1,000th day after he sent troops into Ukraine on February 24 2022.
Missiles
It follows US President Joe Biden’s decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied longer-range missiles.
The signing of the doctrine, which says that any massive aerial attack on Russia could trigger a nuclear response, reflects Mr Putin’s readiness to threaten use of the country’s nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow presses a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine.
‘Timely’
Asked whether the updated doctrine was deliberately issued on the heels of the US decision to ease restrictions on Ukraine using its longer-range missiles to strike Russia, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the document was published “in a timely manner” and that Mr Putin instructed the government to update it earlier this year so that it was “in line with the current situation”.
Mr Putin first announced changes in the nuclear doctrine in September, when he chaired a meeting discussing the proposed revisions.
The new version of the document states that an attack against his country by a non-nuclear power with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” will be seen as their “joint attack on the Russian Federation”.
It does not specify whether such an attack would necessarily trigger a nuclear response.
It mentions the “uncertainty of scale, time and place of possible use of nuclear deterrent” among the key principles of the nuclear deterrence.
At the same time, it spells out conditions for using nuclear weapons in greater detail compared to the previous version of the doctrine, noting they could be used in case of a massive air attack involving ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and other flying vehicles.
Triggers
The wide formulation appears to significantly broaden the triggers for possible nuclear weapons-use compared with the previous version of the document, which stated that Russia could tap its atomic arsenal if “reliable information is received about the launch of ballistic missiles targeting the territory of Russia or its allies”.
The revised doctrine envisages that Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to aggression against its ally Belarus.
Belarus’s authoritarian president Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled the country for more than 30 years, has relied on Russian subsidies and support. He has let Russia use his country’s territory to send troops into Ukraine and allowed the Kremlin to deploy some of its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
So, he can invade, murder, bomb hospitals and schools and civilians and power before a winter, abduct children and commit many war atrocities and crimes, use foreign troops, get armed by china and Iran, funnel oil through places like India for funding but Ukraine are not allowed to defend against the murderous invader.
He knows it is a two way street. Bully will be bully.
I take it Palestine also has just as much right to defend itself?
Will he and his generals risk MAD of their families and everything they own over a bit of extra marshland in the Ukraine?
We know where appeasement led us in 1939.
He knows he can’t use nukes because Mutually Assured Destruction – Russia will be reduced to dust along with everywhere else.
Where are the peacemakers!!!! The invasion of Ukraine was an inevitable outcome following the expansion of NATO and the EU. The latter have shown complete disregard for their agreement with Russia not to expand into eastern Europe if the Berlin Wall was removed. Since then they have reneged on that agreement time and time again moving and expanding right up to the Russian border. Very threatening to the Russian state. Provocation and warmongering of the worst kind. All Russia wanted was a buffer zone between them and warmongering NATO. Surely that could have been negotiated. Instead NATO, to include the… Read more »
That doesn’t give Russia the right to invade a sovereign country does it, they are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, so they can never be invaded. Exactly how is the EU a threat to Russia, when its an economic alliance and not a military one? Its up to Ukraine to decide if it wants to join the EU, not Russia.
Some of the same people most vocally critical of the Russian invasion don’t seem to have a problem with Israel illegally invading Palestine.
Yet on the other hand there are also some who are vocally sympathetic to the Palestinians but are less sympathetic to the Ukrainians, George Galloway for example. FYI I do not support Israel.
The point is NATO and the EU agreed with Gorbachev not to expand into the eastern block. They reneged on that deal time and time again. Moving ever closer to Russia. Why did they do that in the knowledge that Russia found it threatening?
Linda, you also forgot to mention Ukraine gave up its Nuclear Arms in return for sovereignty guarantees (that worked out well !)
Why are you including the EU in your argument, it is not a military alliance and poses no threat to Russia? I’m not saying the the US or NATO are innocent, however Russia invaded Georgia in the 90s and has occupied parts of Moldova. Putin called the break up of the Soviet Union the biggest crime of the 20th century, so whilst one can understand Russia’s concerns in regards to NATO expansion we can also understand why its neighbours want some sort of security. Furthermore their is also the subject matter of the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine agreed to give up… Read more »
Yes, why did all those countries close the Russia rush to join NATO as soon as they could? I wonder.
Where are the peacemakers indeed…there is Mia Mottley in Barbados…
See the Melian Dialogue…
So “a conventional attack on (say, Ukraine) by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power (say, North Korea) will be considered a joint attack on this country.”
Therefore, Ukraine must pass on an identical law/doctrine since Russia and North Korea have been doing exactly the same to Ukraine. Without mentioning lran and China.
May the criminal Putin’s Regime be burnt to the ground !
Have u considered the implications for Europe of a disintegrated and potentially lawless nuclear Russia?
Why is it “Putin or chaos” your only option? A moderated Regime can perfectly replace Putin’s criminal Regime. No one wants to destroy Russia, only to stop Putin’s Regime from going on invading 20% of Georgia, the enclaves in Moldova, Kaliningrad in the Baltic, Crimea in the Black Sea, and all the Ukrainian lands they could occupy so far. Ukraine is not Chechnia. It has been independent by Democratic Referendum for 21 years and the Russian State has recognised it. It’s Russian Imperialism we must stand against. How many more invasions to restaure the former Soviet Union ? All Europe… Read more »
Russia are involved in sabotage around western Europe. Yesterday two undersea communication cables linking Germany to Finland were cut.
Only last week a Russian “research” vessel turned off its AIS Transponders and went into the Irish Sea, close to where the majority of gas/electric/comms cables link Wales and Ireland.
Be in no doubt Russia is preparing for its defeat, as it currency and economic viability is heading off the edge of a cliff.
Is that something to celebrate? A disintegrating Russia is far more of a threat to Europe than Putin surely?