Vladimir Putin makes chilling nuclear warning - but is it a 'declaration of genuine intent'?

The Russian president’s endorsement of the new nuclear deterrent policy comes on the 1,000th day after he sent troops into Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and follows US president Joe Biden's decision to let Ukraine strike targets inside Russia with US-supplied longer-range missiles.

However, Scottish experts in Russian security and international relations indicated that the response from Russia should be seen as a tool of “political pressure” designed to suppress support for Ukraine by the UK and other western governments - rather than a “declaration of genuine intent”.

The UK has refused to reveal if it plans to follow the Biden administration’s lead, for example, by extending the use of British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine to hit targets inside Russia. The decision to allow Ukraine to use US-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) rockets represents a major policy shift by Washington, although the use of the missiles is limited to the defence of Ukrainian forces inside Russia's Kursk region, where Kyiv launched a surprise incursion in August.

The signing of the doctrine, which declares that a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack on his country and warns that any massive aerial attack could trigger a nuclear response, reflects Putin's readiness to threaten use of the country's nuclear arsenal to force the west to back down as Moscow continues to battle a slow-moving offensive in Ukraine.

Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Kremlin, revealed Moscow's stance during his daily news briefing as he was asked about the significance of the changes to the nuclear doctrine approved by Vladimir Putin today.

According to state-run news agency Tass, he said the document "concerns the fact that the Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression with the use of conventional weapons against it" where that is deemed to have created "a critical threat to sovereignty or territorial integrity".

Asked by journalists whether Russia would view the use of western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian armed forces as part of an attack by a non-nuclear state with the support of a nuclear state, and whether that would entail the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons, Tass quoted him as replying: “Yes, that is what is being discussed.”

Dr Marcin Kaczmarski, lecturer in security studies at the University of Glasgow, whose specialist research areas include Russia’s foreign and security policy, told The Scotsman that the move by the Kremlin was designed to push down the support being offered to Ukraine by other western governments.

He said: “In my view, this change in the nuclear doctrine is a direct response to Biden's decision. I would say that the aim is to pre-empt decisions by the European states - France and the UK - when it comes to allowing Ukraine to use their missiles built with the US technology for strikes deep in Russia, and Germany when it comes to the decision whether to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine.

“The Russian leadership sees public opinion and political elites in European states as wary of nuclear escalation and hopes that the revision of the doctrine will put sufficient pressure on the British, French or German governments to limit their support for Ukraine. In other words, I see the revision as a tool of political pressure directed primarily at Europe rather than a declaration of genuine intent of Moscow to use nuclear weapons.”

Professor Rick Fawn, a specialist on international security at the University of St Andrews, said he believed the step revealed the “serious dilemmas” facing Putin, pointing out that despite the fact he had issued multiple threats and “proverbial red lines,” he had not enforced them.

“The dilemma here is obviously his credibility, and that matters deeply,” he reasoned. “Personally, and as a self-appointed saviour of the Russians, it is extremely difficult for him to be seen to sabre rattle but not deliver. And now the costs can be even higher. Ukraine will do everything possible to shore up its position before the Trump administration is inaugurated in January.”

Dr Kasia Kaczmarska, senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of Edinburgh, said: “The revision of the doctrine represents yet another step in Russia's longstanding policy of bolstering Russia's great-power status and standing in the world with the help of its nuclear arsenal. As such, it reveals how militarism permeates Russia's relations with the outside world, particularly the west.

“The invasion of Ukraine has only increased the importance of nuclear weapons as Russia's key instrument in international politics. The Kremlin seems to hope to discourage Western states from arming Ukraine.”

Putin first announced changes in the nuclear doctrine in September, when he chaired a meeting discussing the proposed revisions. The new version of the document states that an attack against his country by a non-nuclear power with the “participation or support of a nuclear power” will be seen as their “joint attack on the Russian Federation.”

It does not specify whether such an attack would necessarily trigger a nuclear response, but mentions the “uncertainty of scale, time and place of possible use of nuclear deterrent” among the key principles of the nuclear deterrence.

At the same time, it spells out conditions for using nuclear weapons in greater detail compared to the previous version of the doctrine, noting they could be used in case of a massive air attack involving ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and other flying vehicles.