Vladimir Putin once again decided to raise the stakes on the geopolitical chessboard, threatening to change the rules of the game, which he himself had established. The change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine, which he announced, now provides that military aggression by any state that does not have a nuclear arsenal, but enjoys military support from a nuclear power, will be regarded as an attack by the nuclear power itself on Russia. At first glance, this is another act of blackmail on the part of the Kremlin, which is resorting to the rhetoric of “last warning” in an attempt to scare the West and force it to reduce its support for Ukraine. However, there is much more behind this move than just the desire to draw attention to one’s own “red lines” again.
Putin has repeatedly used nuclear blackmail as a tool to create tension in relations with the West, but each time his words have remained empty, without turning into real actions. So is this really a change in strategy that could turn any military aid to Ukraine into a potentially dangerous move for the whole of Europe, or is it just another act of political bluff aimed at sowing panic among Western countries and making them think about abandoning further support of Kyiv? It is also important to take into account that the statement about the change in nuclear doctrine was made at a time when the Russian army is facing serious problems on the battlefield and is no longer able to effectively conduct combat operations using traditional methods. In such a situation, the threat of using nuclear weapons becomes almost the only means of pressure on the world community.
Western analysts and experts differ in their assessment of the possible consequences of this move by the Kremlin. Some believe that this is just an attempt to intimidate NATO and thus force Washington and Brussels to reduce military support to Ukraine. Others argue that such statements may indicate growing nervousness and desperation in the Kremlin, which could lead to unpredictable actions, especially if Putin feels he is losing control of the situation. Whatever the real motivation of the Russian leader, one thing is clear: this move by the Kremlin not only puts the fate of Ukraine at stake, but also threatens to shake the security architecture of the whole of Europe.
What do foreign media write about this?
The Spectator – Great Britain. You should not be afraid of Putin, – reassures the London weekly The Spectator:
“Nuclear doctrines are not insurmountable laws that determine when this or that state decides to use nuclear weapons. The decision to press or not to press the notorious red button still remains with the head of state. …Secondly, nuclear doctrines are deliberately formulated vaguely. In other words, it is important to leave the adversary only guessing at which point the rubicon of a nuclear response will be crossed. Therefore, the announced change in doctrine is not so much a fundamental change in Russian nuclear policy as an attempt to send a signal to the Western audience.”
https://www.eurotopics.net/kurz/m7a
Echo – Russia. In his Telegram post, quoted by the Echo portal, political scientist Volodymyr Pastukhov says that there is a noticeable sign of nervousness in Putin’s actions:
“In itself, this thing is harmless. All these doctrines are important if you have a state governed by the rule of law with the separation of powers and other democratic frills. And in a mafia totalitarian state, people have been killing without any doctrines for a long time. That is, from a practical point of view, amending the doctrine does not mean anything in Russia nothing at all, but from a psychological point of view, it rather demonstrates the growing nervousness of the Kremlin: they say that they are completely deaf, but we have a bomb, b-o-b-a? Does this mean that the Kremlin will not use nuclear weapons at all? in a hysterical state, it is most likely to be used.”
De Standaard – Belgium. Brussels’ De Standaard analyzes the probability of Putin’s use of nuclear weapons:
“Experts say that tactical nuclear weapons will do little from a military point of view in this phase of the war, because the length of the front line is too long. If it is used against cities like Kharkiv or Kyiv, then of course there will be many casualties. But the consequences will be worth Putin’s relatively small advantage, which he was able to achieve today. Without a doubt, he also calculated it. Therefore, it is more profitable for him to threaten with nuclear weapons.”
Independent – Латвія. Riga Neatkarīgā analyzes the motives of the head of the Kremlin:
“Putin is trying to trick Trump into threatening the world with a nuclear catastrophe if the West continues to support Ukraine or, worse than that, increases its military aid. … And the main reason may be that Biden’s visit is scheduled for October 10-12 to Berlin. … Putin’s demonstrative change in nuclear doctrine should, after all, prevent excessive enthusiasm on the part of Western leaders regarding the escalation of military aid to Ukraine. its effectiveness is getting weaker every time.”
Yeni Mesaj – Turkey. The Yeni Mesaj portal believes that the change in nuclear doctrine is a dangerous trend:
“Is the worst-case scenario coming true? Many years ago, during another crisis, Putin described it like this: “if a gun hangs on the stage during a performance, it will definitely fire at some point.” It is also true that if the Western countries will continue the policy of inciting an increasingly fierce war, which means that their hands are already touching the nuclear button. … Both world wars began in a less tense world than today. It can grow into both the third world and the first nuclear one.”
