Biden announces increase in military aid to Ukraine

“It should be considered a clear signal.” With these words, a Kremlin spokesman answered a question about whether the “changes” that took place in the country’s “nuclear doctrine”, which Russian President Vladimir Putin called a “warning to the West,” raising questions about… What could this hold for world peace.

The Kremlin announced on Thursday that Putin’s “changes” to his country’s nuclear weapons doctrine should be considered a “signal” to Ukraine’s allies that there will be consequences if it takes part in attacks on the Russia.

Putin said on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons “if hit by conventional missiles,” and that ​​Moscow would consider any attack on it “backed by a nuclear force, a joint attack,” according to Reuters.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov explained that changes were drawn up to a document called “Foundations of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence,” which is the official Russian name for the nuclear doctrine.

When journalists asked him if the changes represented a warning to the West, he said, “It should be considered a clear signal,” he said: “This is a signal that to warn these (Western) countries of the consequences of their involvement in an attack on our country by any means, not necessarily nuclear.”

He said the world was witnessing an “unprecedented conflict” as a result of the “direct intervention of Western countries, including nuclear powers,” in the war in Ukraine.

He indicated that a decision on whether or not to release the nuclear documents would be made later.

In early September, the Russian news agency “TASS” reported that Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Moscow “will introduce changes to its nuclear doctrine in response to the actions of the West” regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, with around 6,000 warheads.

Russia’s current nuclear doctrine specifies the use of nuclear weapons “in the event of a nuclear attack by an enemy or an attack with conventional weapons that threatens the existence of the state,” according to a decree issued by Putin in 2020 .

According to experts who spoke to the newspaper,Financial Times“Britain, the changes announced on Wednesday could represent a “significant reduction of Russia’s declared nuclear threshold, and more criteria for Moscow to clarify to authorize nuclear strikes.”

In this regard, the director of Russia’s Carnegie Eurasia Center in Berlin, Alexander Gabuev, explained: “These are signs at the moment, but they are very aggressive and the most specific so far.”

Speaking to the British newspaper, Gapopev opined that if Russia were to publish an updated doctrine with Putin’s proposed changes, it would “remain deliberately vague about the Kremlin’s threshold for revenge “

He noted that key issues arising from the war in Ukraine will remain open to interpretation, such as whether Russia will consider attacks on the five Ukrainian oblasts it partially occupies as attacks on the mainland.

“We have to see how far they are willing to go in the changes (to the nuclear doctrine),” said Gabuyev.

‘Empty Threats’

For his part, the researcher and expert in Ukrainian affairs, Muhammad Faraj Allah, in an interview with the Al-Hurra website, considered that Putin’s statements “are for local consumption, and the evidence that he had many previously issued threats of non-violation. red lines that the Kremlin had imposed against the Ukrainian forces.”

He continued: “But these red lines have been broken many times, such as targeting the depths of Russia several times, entering the Kursk region and controlling large areas there, without Putin using tactical nuclear weapons. “

Farajallah noted that “the Budapest Agreement of 1994, under which Kiev gave up more than two thousand nuclear warheads, stipulates that the United States and Great Britain, as sponsor countries, provide over (nuclear shields) to Ukraine, if it is under control. to nuclear attack.”

He emphasized the third factor, which is that the so-called “club of nuclear states,” including countries neutral in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, “resolutely rejects the use of nuclear weapons any, as this will change the course of conflict. and wars in a very dangerous way on a global scale.” .

He also highlighted the fourth point, which is that “many senior commanders in the Russian military, despite their support for invading Ukraine, nevertheless categorically reject nuclear weapons to use any in war, because of the great and dangerous consequences for their country. as a result of such a decision.”

Faraj Allah also pointed out how difficult it is to use these weapons, explaining that “the missile (Satan-2), which is expected to exceed 11 thousand km, has failed in 4 preliminary tests so far.”

Western experts had said that this missile “could carry 10 nuclear warheads and destroy entire countries such as Britain and France,” according to the British newspaper “The Telegraph.”

For his part, Russian strategic expert, Andrei Murtazin, said in a previous interview with the Al-Hurra website that Moscow will change its “nuclear doctrine” so that there is a “mandatory nuclear response” to Western countries and the United States. in the event of “threat to the integrity of the Russian territory.”

“If the Russian state entity is threatened, the response will be mandatory for the United States directly, because nuclear weapons can only be used against Russia with American consent,” according to the Russian strategic expert.

He pointed out that Russia’s nuclear doctrine “specifies the use of nuclear weapons in two cases. The first is when Russia is exposed to a nuclear attack, which requires a retaliatory response. The second case exposes the Russian state entity to the existence of a threat,” according to his speech to the Al-Hurra website.

There is no “specific explanation” why a country is exposed to an “existential threat,” and the nature of these existential threats has not been determined, according to a Russian strategic expert.

As for the Syrian military and strategic expert, Ahmed Rahal, he believed that there are “four reasons” that could push Russia to use nuclear weapons, according to Russian doctrine.

These cases are related to “threatening the state entity, even if using conventional weapons, and if strikes are launched using ballistic missiles, or being exposed to direct nuclear strikes, or being exposed to the dangers of chemical and biological weapons,” according to his speech to the Al-Hurra Website.