[ad_1]
The new doctrine announced Tuesday allows for a potential nuclear response by Moscow even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation with the backing of a nuclear power.
The Russian Defense Ministry said early Tuesday that Ukraine fired six US-made ATACMS missiles at a military facility in Russia’s Bryansk region bordering Ukraine, adding that air defenses shot down five of them and damaged another.
While the doctrine foresees Russia’s possible nuclear response to such a conventional attack, it is worded broadly to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons and keep Putin’s options open.
The approval of the document shows Putin’s willingness to use his nuclear arsenal to force the West to back down as Moscow mounts a slow offensive in Ukraine as the war reaches its 1,000th day.
Asked Tuesday whether a Ukrainian strike with longer-range US missiles could potentially trigger a nuclear response, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said yes, pointing to a provision in the doctrine that keeps the door open for that after a conventional strike that poses critical threats to “sovereignty and territorial integrity: of Russia and its ally Belarus.
Commenting on whether the updated doctrine was deliberately issued to follow Biden’s decision, Peskov said the document was released “on time” and that Putin had instructed the government to update it earlier this year to be “in line with the current situation.” .
Putin first announced the changes to the nuclear doctrine in September, when he chaired a meeting to discuss the proposed revisions. He previously warned the US and other NATO allies that allowing Ukraine to use longer-range Western-supplied weapons to target Russian territory would mean Russia and NATO are at war.
Washington allowed Ukraine to use longer-range weapons on targets inside Russia after announcing that thousands of North Korean troops were deployed in Russia’s Kursk region to fight incursions by Kiev forces.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the revised nuclear doctrine as the “latest example of irresponsibility” by the “corrupt Russian government,” according to spokeswoman Camilla Marshall.
“It is Russia that continues to escalate this war, and the use of North Korean troops is just one example of that,” Marshall said.
“He could withdraw his troops, bring back his tanks and end the offensive and the needless bloodshed in both Ukraine and Russia. … We urge him to do so.”
The updated doctrine says that an attack on Russia by a non-nuclear power with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” will be considered their “joint attack on the Russian Federation.”
It says any massive air strike against Russia could trigger a nuclear response, but avoids any firm commitment and mentions “uncertainty of the scale, timing and location of the possible use of nuclear deterrence” among the key tenets of nuclear deterrence.
The document also states that aggression against Russia by a member of a military bloc or coalition is considered “bloc-wide aggression,” a clear reference to NATO.
At the same time, it details the conditions for using nuclear weapons compared to previous versions of the doctrine, noting that they can be used in the event of a massive air strike involving ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and other flying vehicles.
Vladimir Putin through the years: Who is actually the president of Russia?
The wording appears to significantly expand the triggers for the possible use of nuclear weapons compared to the previous version of the document, which stated that Russia could use its atomic arsenal in the event of a ballistic missile attack.
President Alexander Lukashenko, who ruled Belarus with an iron fist for more than 30 years and relied on Russian subsidies and support, has allowed Russia to use his country’s territory to send troops to Ukraine and to deploy some of its tactical nuclear weapons.
Since Putin sent troops to Ukraine, he and other Russian voices have frequently threatened the West with Russia’s nuclear arsenal to discourage it from increasing support for Kiev.
Russia hawks have called for a toughening of the doctrine for months, arguing that the previous version failed to deter the West from increasing aid to Ukraine and created the impression that Moscow would not reach for nuclear weapons.
[ad_2]