“Is the world close to nuclear war: the change in Russian doctrine, the world’s reaction and the opinions of expertsRussia has expanded the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, including threats to territorial integrity and attacks by allies. Experts and world leaders rate the risks as low, seeing it as more political pressure.”, — write on: unn.ua
Against this background, different opinions of analysts are heard. Some consider these statements to be an attempt at political pressure, while others draw attention to potential risks.
The update of the doctrine took place against the background of reports that the US allowed Ukraine to use long-range weapons for strikes on the territory of Russia. Moscow has repeatedly responded to this with harsh statements, stressing 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 carry out such strikes would actually mean NATO’s involvement in hostilities.
The US government sees changes in Russia’s nuclear strategy as a signal to potential expansion of conflict zones. Washington condemns these statements, stressing that Russia increases the risks of a global nuclear crisis. At the same time, the US continues to provide military support to Ukraine, including the transfer of modern weapons.
Experts in the UNN commentary assessed the level and probability of a nuclear threatTaras Zahorodniy, a political scientist, notes that the real probability of Russia using nuclear weapons currently seems low:
“If the Russians were sure that tactical nuclear weapons would solve their problems in Ukraine, they would have used them a long time ago. But all nuclear powers, including China, are categorically against this.”
According to Zagorodnyi, even if Putin takes such a step, Russia risks facing a conventional NATO response. Such a scenario has been repeatedly discussed by the Western military, in particular the former commander of the US Army in Europe, Ben Hodges.
“What they write in the 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.
Zahorodnyi 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, for example, such as in the US, their elements are in Romania and Poland.”
The political scientist also emphasizes the need for Ukraine to recall the Budapest Memorandum:
“The US promised Ukraine the inviolability of its territories after . This document is in effect, and it needs to be constantly reminded. They understand this perfectly, but, of course, they are trying to partially avoid fulfilling their obligations. No country wants to overexert itself.”
The expert added that politicians everywhere act according to similar principles, and also recalled that at the beginning of the war, they did not even want to provide equipment, HIMARS, or the ability to strike on Russian territory, but later changed their decision.
Taras Semenyuk, another Ukrainian political scientist, believes that the current nuclear rhetoric is rather a tool of psychological pressure:
“I don’t think we can talk about getting closer to nuclear war. Nuclear weapons work as a deterrent, not as a means of attack. It’s actually the last argument a state can use to stop its fall or prevent an attack. Rather, the world is getting closer to of nuclear blackmail than to the actual use of nuclear weapons. Although I am not 100% sure of this, there is always a percentage of the risk that someone may not withstand and use at least a tactical nuclear weapons that can be used in the nearest territory. It is difficult to talk about a specific threat so far, but the fact that nuclear rhetoric appears in the information space is undeniable.”
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, Russia’s 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 actual use of nuclear weapons, but about their use as a tool of pressure. Moreover, one of the main allies of the Russian Federation – China – publicly opposes their use.”
Semenyuk added that Ukraine is unlikely to be able to provide protection against the nuclear threat on its own. We can only count on collective security — whether within the framework of NATO or through international support for air defense systems.
But even the best systems like Patriot or THAAD cannot completely protect against nuclear warheads.
“However, in alliance with other states, it is quite possible to provide protection”
The political scientist also answered what the modernization of nuclear weapons in other countries means. After all, in the context of the growing nuclear threat caused by the actions of both Russia and China, the United States is reviewing its nuclear strategy. As noted by Richard S. Johnson, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, the world is faced with a situation where several states are modernizing their arsenals at the same time.
The US has already taken steps to strengthen its own nuclear potential. In particular, the US Department of Defense is developing a new nuclear bomb B61-13, which will become part of the updated arsenal. In addition, the readiness of nuclear submarines is increasing.
“The modernization of the nuclear arsenal is a common practice. Nuclear weapons, like any technology, have a shelf life, so they need to be updated. This is a normal process, similar to changing the oil in a car. Its purpose is to maintain the arsenal’s combat capability, not to prepare for “Whether Russia, China, or the USA does it is just a matter of maintenance, not a signal of a real threat,” Taras Semenyuk explains.
Political scientist Maksym Yali draws attention to the fact that the world has really become closer to a nuclear catastrophe.
“For the first time in history, an intermediate-range ballistic missile, albeit not an intercontinental one, was used, the main purpose of which is to carry a nuclear charge. Therefore, yes, the world is one step closer to a nuclear disaster. Especially considering Putin’s statements and his demonstration of readiness to take such a step , if, from his point of view, he would where forced to do it”.
At the same time, the expert emphasizes that the escalation is an initiative of the Kremlin itself. The West is responding to his actions, but in the Russian narrative it 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 the countries of the West. After all, the West is either nuclear powers 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 fully to destroy Russia. Therefore, the threat primarily concerns Ukraine.”
The expert recalled cases from 2022 when Ukraine carried out a successful counteroffensive in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. At the time, 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, before the end of the presidential elections in the USA and the inauguration of Donald Trump, Putin is unlikely to go for a nuclear strike. Unfortunately, there is no real military threat of defeat for Russia, if we assess the situation on the battlefield. And the long-range missiles provided to Ukraine by the partners are not capable of fundamentally changing the status quo.”
The main lesson for Ukraine is the need to develop its own defense potential.
“The need to rely on ourselves is the main conclusion from the last 10 years of Russian aggression. Our partners, including the USA and Great Britain, in 2014, after the occupation of Crimea, did not fulfill their obligations under the Budapest Memorandum. Moreover, the then US President Barack Obama imposed a veto on the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. Even then it was necessary to develop its own military-industrial complex, to create ballistic missiles, using the potential that Ukraine has inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union.”
The expert emphasizes that Russia attacks those who are weaker. Ukraine would have been able to avoid the 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 conditions 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, which began after the Caribbean crisis, create a new reality.
“After the nuclear crisis of the 20th century, the world began to develop international law to prevent conflicts. But now this order is collapsing, and the one who is strong acts. He dictates the rules. The support of partners is important, but as we saw in 2014 and 2022, no one will risk his own security for the sake of Ukraine, especially when it comes to nuclear war.”
Ukraine must take these realities into account, develop its own defense industry and strengthen its defense capabilities in cooperation with partners.
The 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 announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, Jean-Noel Barro.
“This is just rhetoric. We will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by these threats,” he said on the air of the Cnews TV channel. Barro emphasized that Putin has been regularly using nuclear blackmail for the past two and a half years in an attempt to cause concern among NATO countries.
The minister also noted that the changes in the Russian nuclear doctrine did not come as a surprise, as it had been announced earlier.
Barro repeated the call of French President Emmanuel Macron to the Russian leader to return “to common sense”.
Prime Minister of Great Britain Keir Starmer reacted to the update of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, stressing that it will not affect London’s decision to support Ukraine.
Starmer noted that Russia’s rhetoric is irresponsible, but it will not be able to stop Great Britain’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” for actions that isolated Russia on the international stage.
China’s response
China has urged countries to remain calm after Russia’s nuclear doctrine update. In Beijing, it was emphasized that in order to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, it is necessary to conduct dialogue and consultations.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said that all parties should refrain from escalating the situation and work together to reduce risks through negotiations.
He emphasized that China’s position remains unchanged: Beijing advocates de-escalation and a peaceful resolution of 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 can 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 the financial sphere. China has the ability to significantly increase pressure on Russia by limiting 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 that would involve China.
· Chinese diplomacy: China can use diplomatic channels to dissuade Russia from using nuclear weapons by calling for negotiated de-escalation.
At the same time, China maintains significant economic ties with Europe and the United States, and a nuclear conflict could have unpredictable consequences for its economy. In addition, strategic interests in maintaining stability in Asia and the world in general should not be dismissed.