On 24th September 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced substantial revisions to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, highlighting Moscow’s concern over what it perceives as escalating Western involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Just a couple of months later, on Tuesday 19th November, Putin solidified these changes by officially designating them as part of the official policy of the Russian Federation, marking a pivotal shift in military strategy.
Notably, the updated policy explicitly expands Russia’s nuclear umbrella to encompass Belarus, presenting this as a firm commitment under the longstanding Union State agreement between the two nations, which has articulated their cooperative defense strategy since its inception in 1999. This agreement signifies an assurance that both nations will support each other while maintaining their individual sovereignty. Moscow’s decision to extend its deterrence to Belarus aligns with the actions of Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, who has allowed the stationing of Russian-controlled tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory, a development that some Western analysts have downplayed as merely a diplomatic posturing.
Additionally, Paragraph 10 of the revised doctrine asserts: “The aggression by any state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies shall be considered as aggression by this coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.” This statement directly references NATO, indicating that any hostile act against Russia by a member of an allied military coalition triggers a collective response from the entire bloc. Moreover, Paragraph 11 emphasizes that “Aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state shall be considered as their joint attack,” which legitimizes nuclear retaliation in such scenarios, even though it remains ambiguous which entities would specifically be targeted in retaliation.
What has driven Putin to implement these significant changes, thereby lowering the nuclear threshold? Primarily, it stems from what can best be described as a cautionary tale reminiscent of “the boy who cried wolf” — a situation where Putin’s increasing reliance on nuclear threats to instill caution in Western powers has led to a growing trend of the West disregarding Russia’s proclaimed red lines in the context of military actions in Ukraine.
Since the war commenced, Putin’s vocal nuclear posturing has revealed both bravado and insecurity, demonstrating a potential bluff as the Western allies have exhibited a calculated finesse in navigating the crisis without breaching Moscow’s perceived limits. Initially, the US responded to Putin’s nuclear postulations with a serious demeanor, acknowledging his declaration that “this is not a bluff.” However, the mixed results of his nuclear intimidation reflect the West’s adeptness in maintaining a delicate balance — employing communication through intelligence channels, establishing targeted economic support, and arming Kyiv with progressively advanced weaponry, including the Anglo-French Storm Shadow cruise missile aimed at Russian assets within Ukraine, alongside F-16 fighter jets.
This strategic approach has presented a core dilemma for Putin; while Russia’s nuclear deterrent effectively prevents direct NATO engagement, it cannot impede Western nations from operating within these defined limits. As such, Western allies continuously probe Russia’s red lines, systematically eroding Moscow’s credibility and strategic deterrence without igniting a direct confrontation. This ongoing degradation of Russia’s strategic leverage poses challenges for Moscow, as each progressive action taken by the West undermines Russia’s influence in Ukraine and the overall effectiveness of its deterrent strategy.
Yet, the revamped nuclear doctrine and the specter of escalation it presents raise important questions about Putin’s understanding of nuclear armaments. Historically, during the Cold War, leaders in both the US and Russia recognized that nuclear arsenals offered minimal political or military advantage against an adversary capable of executing secure second-strike capabilities. However, the onset of the Ukraine conflict has led Putin to redefine this paradigm by deploying nuclear weapons as instruments of coercion, in a bid to manipulate shared nuclear threats for political leverage and intimidation. In his strategic calculus, nuclear threats are employed as tools of deterrence and psychological warfare, intending to impose stress on opponents while steering clear of outright nuclear engagement.
In Putin’s view, nuclear threats serve as instruments of deterrence and psychological warfare, calculated to pressure opponents while avoiding outright use.
Rishi Paul
Despite the influence of Putin’s nuclear threats on the timing and nature of Western support for Ukraine, they have not fundamentally altered Western policies or deterred the sustained provision of aid to Kyiv. Instead, these circumstances highlight the limitations of nuclear coercion as an effective method for dictating adversaries’ behaviors, underscoring its intrinsic bluntness and ineffectiveness in achieving desired political or strategic results.
Putin’s initial announcement regarding doctrinal modifications coincided with salient discussions at the United Nations, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was advocating for authorisation to deploy advanced Western-supplied weaponry against strategically crucial targets within Russian territory. Zelensky’s appeal signifies a noteworthy strategic transition, as Ukraine aims not only to reclaim its own territories but also to dismantle Russia’s ability to sustain aggression by targeting military assets within Russia itself.
This request posed a complex challenge for Western powers, compelling them to evaluate the potential escalation risks against the advantages of granting Ukraine broader operational latitude. In this scenario, Putin’s announcement on 24th September acted as a shrewd counter-warning, subtly reminding UN and NATO members of the perils associated with encroaching upon Moscow’s red lines. Nevertheless, on 17th November, the US approved Kyiv’s request for permission to employ ATACMS missiles beyond its borders, with the UK swiftly following suit by lifting restrictions on the use of British cruise Storm Shadow missiles against targets inside Russia.
Upon receipt of the Biden administration’s approval, Ukraine executed a strike using six ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles towards Russia, showcasing that both the US and UK perceived Putin’s 24th September warning as merely bluster, which cautioned that aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear state, particularly in collaboration with a nuclear state, would be treated as a joint attack and could provoke a nuclear response.
Why has the US opted to confront Russia’s red lines? One potential explanation lies in the sentiments of President-elect Trump, who has openly conveyed dissatisfaction with continued US military and economic assistance for Ukraine, contending that such a course of action does not align with US national interests. Throughout his campaign, Trump proclaimed that he would resolve the conflict immediately upon taking office. Lacking significant US support could impede the West’s ability to mobilize resources in backing Ukraine, thereby tilting military advantages toward Russia. Ironically, while this reduction in US support may lower the risk of Putin escalating the conflict through nuclear means, it conversely heightens the likelihood of Ukraine surrendering additional territory to Russian forces.
As the clock nears two months before the anticipated Trump administration, the Biden administration is signaling to Ukraine that it will back its efforts to secure the territories it still holds from Russia, intending to use this hold as a critical bargaining chip in any future negotiations.
In response to these developments, Putin formalized Russia’s revised nuclear doctrine “in a timely manner,” reinforcing his position to convey the gravity of Russia’s political and military boundaries while attempting to deter further Western military involvement without triggering direct conflict. Following this, Putin conducted a retaliatory strike by launching a nuclear-capable experimental ballistic missile with an impressive range of several thousand kilometres targeting the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. This action served as a stark warning to Kyiv’s allies: a broader conflict may be on the horizon should the West push its policy too hard.
Despite Putin’s willingness to escalate through advanced weaponry, Moscow took the precautionary measure of notifying the US Threat Reduction Center just 30 minutes prior to the missile launch, an action aimed at averting misinterpretation and mitigating the risk of immediate nuclear escalation. This reflects Putin’s acknowledgment of the potential dangers linked with miscalculations and accidental escalation, underscoring his objective to prevent an unintentional nuclear confrontation.
Nonetheless, the potential for Putin to escalate with low-yield nuclear weapons in combat scenarios cannot be entirely dismissed. Such a decision, albeit unlikely, might manifest as a nuclear warning shot fired over a desolate area in Ukraine should Putin perceive an immediate threat to his leadership or the “sovereignty and/or territorial integrity” of Russia and Belarus as being compromised. However, the definition of “sovereignty” within the revised doctrine remains intentionally vague, which could arguably encompass regime security. This ambiguity mirrors the indistinct language in Russia’s earlier 2020 nuclear doctrine, permitting nuclear engagement when “the very existence of the state is threatened.”
Putin’s deliberate use of ambiguity — a lack of specificity — is a strategic maneuver designed to instill uncertainty among his adversaries. While ambiguity within nuclear doctrine is not exclusive to Russia and is utilized by other nuclear-capable nations, Putin’s approach is distinctive because it is crafted specifically in the context of an ongoing conflict, thus remaining broad enough to avoid concrete commitments regarding nuclear weapon usage and allowing for flexibility in his strategic options.
Finally, any deployment of nuclear weapons by Russia could incite retaliatory responses and fundamentally alter the dynamics of the war, likely inviting NATO’s direct engagement—an outcome that runs counter to Putin’s strategic objectives. Presently, Russia holds a conventional military advantage over Ukraine, a condition that would be jeopardized if NATO were to intervene and support Ukraine directly in combat.
The European Leadership Network itself as an institution holds no formal policy positions. The opinions articulated above represent the views of the authors rather than the European Leadership Network or its members. The ELN aims to encourage debates that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing foreign, defence, and security policy challenges of our time, to further its charitable purposes.
Image credit: Russian Government / Alamy Stock Photo
How does Russia’s strategy of aggressive rhetoric and military posturing influence the perceptions of risk among its adversaries?
Se it leverages a historical pattern of aggressive rhetoric accompanied by military posturing. This strategy aims to generate fear and hesitation among potential adversaries, thus allowing Russia to advance its geopolitical aims without engaging in direct conflict.
In summation, while Western support for Ukraine has remained steadfast despite the backdrop of Putin’s nuclear threats, the landscape is undoubtedly complex. The delicate balance of power hinges on perceptions of risk and opportunity, shaped by both military developments and the intertwining political narratives in play. As the situation continues to evolve, the interplay of nuclear strategy, international relations, and the resolve of key actors like the US, UK, and Russia will shape the future of the conflict in Ukraine and the broader implications for global security. The potential for miscalculation remains, especially in an environment where the stakes are as high as they are today, necessitating careful diplomatic engagement to mitigate the risks of escalation. With the Biden administration’s continued support for Ukraine and the uncertainty surrounding potential shifts in US policy, the coming months will be critical in determining the trajectory of both the conflict and the stability of the region.
