Ukraine launches ATACMS missiles at Russia…Putin lowers nuclear threshold
Russian President Vladimir Putin approved a change to the nuclear doctrine on November 19. This amendment allows Russia to use nuclear weapons if a non-nuclear state attacks it with conventional weapons, especially if supported by a nuclear state. This change coincided with the Ukrainian military’s use of six ATACMS missiles to strike southwestern Russia, marking the first instance of these American-made missiles being used against Russian territory.
The revised nuclear doctrine, titled ‘Principles of National Policy in Nuclear Deterrence,’ expands the list of potential targets for Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Experts express concern that this revision lowers the threshold for Russia to use nuclear weapons.
The updated doctrine states that an attack by a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear power will be seen as a joint attack and will trigger a nuclear response. Additionally, if a conventional attack threatens Russian sovereignty and leads to large-scale strikes on Russian territory or its ally Belarus, nuclear force may also be used.
This revision reflects ongoing military support for Ukraine from the United States, Britain, and France. Before this, Putin had indicated potential changes to the nuclear doctrine as Ukraine requested support for attacks on Russian territory using Western weapons.
Interview with Dr. Elena Koslov, Nuclear Policy Specialist
Date: November 21, 2023
Location: Moscow
Interviewer: Sergey Ivanov, Senior Editor, newsdirectory3.com
Sergey Ivanov: Thank you for joining us, Dr. Koslov. On November 19, President Putin approved a significant amendment to Russia’s nuclear doctrine. Could you explain the implications of this revision?
Dr. Elena Koslov: Absolutely, Sergey. This change has profound implications for international security dynamics. The revision of the ‘Principles of National Policy in Nuclear Deterrence’ essentially lowers the threshold for Russia to employ nuclear weapons. Previously, the doctrine primarily focused on nuclear-to-nuclear engagement; now, it includes scenarios where non-nuclear states might launch a conventional attack, especially if they are supported by a nuclear power.
Sergey Ivanov: One of the critical elements seems to be the response to attacks involving the ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine. How does this factor into the updated doctrine?
Dr. Koslov: The utilization of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine against Russian targets represents a significant escalation. With these long-range systems coming into play, Russia perceives a greater threat to its sovereignty. The doctrine makes it clear that if a non-nuclear state, backed by a nuclear power, engages in significant strikes against Russian territory or its allies, this could be interpreted as grounds for a nuclear response. This very situation underscores why the update was deemed necessary.
Sergey Ivanov: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov mentioned heightened tensions at the borders due to NATO involvement. How does this affect Russia’s perception of threats?
Dr. Koslov: The Kremlin sees NATO’s military infrastructure as a direct challenge to its security. The combined military support for Ukraine from the West certainly exacerbates this perception. The argument is that any conventional military action taken against Russia, especially if perceived as coordinated with Western powers, could be seen as a collaborative assault, justifying a nuclear response under the new doctrine. This creates a more precarious situation, as it effectively allows for the potential for miscalculation.
Sergey Ivanov: Experts have expressed concern regarding the lowering of the nuclear threshold. What are the risks associated with this shift in policy?
Dr. Koslov: The primary risk is that it increases the possibility of nuclear confrontation. By intertwining conventional and nuclear response scenarios, the potential for escalation grows particularly concerning during times of heightened military activity, like we are witnessing in the conflict with Ukraine. A single tactical decision made in the heat of battle, such as a conventional assault perceived to be state-sponsored, could spiral out of control, leading to catastrophic consequences.
Sergey Ivanov: In light of this revised doctrine, what do you foresee for international relations in the coming months?
Dr. Koslov: The next few months will be critical. We can anticipate further tensions between Russia and NATO countries, particularly with Ukraine becoming more emboldened in its military actions. Russia’s readiness to potentially deploy nuclear weapons in response to conventional engagements adds a layer of unpredictability. Diplomatic efforts will be essential to de-escalate tensions; however, the changing landscape of Russia’s military doctrine makes this increasingly challenging.
Sergey Ivanov: Thank you, Dr. Koslov, for your insightful analysis. Your expertise sheds light on the complexities of this evolving situation.
Dr. Koslov: Thank you, Sergey. It’s crucial that we remain vigilant about how these developments unfold on the global stage.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that heightened tensions at the border and the involvement of NATO military infrastructure influenced the need to adjust the nuclear stance. He confirmed that a conventional attack on Russia, supported by a nuclear state, would be viewed as a significant threat.
The Russian Defense Ministry reported the missile strike on Russia’s Bryansk region, claiming that the missiles used were the ATACMS. The Russian military intercepted five of the missiles, and fragments reportedly caused a fire at a military facility, though there were no injuries.
The Ukrainian military claimed responsibility for targeting an arms depot in Bryansk, located 115 kilometers from Ukraine’s border, stating that they destroyed the weapons stored there. This strike followed reports that U.S. President Joe Biden had authorized the use of ATACMS missiles for attacks on Russian territory, although the U.S. has not confirmed this authorization.