By David Hodari, Freddie Clayton and Natasha Lebedeva
If the Kremlin was hoping to instill fear among its Western foes by lowering the bar for its use of nuclear weapons, then it may have been disappointed Wednesday.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s broadened nuclear doctrine appeared to be a thinly veiled threat to the United States and its allies over their ramped-up support for Ukraine.
The updated document includes a change that allows for Moscow to launch a nuclear strike if attacked by a nonnuclear country, such as Ukraine, that is supported by a nuclear state, such as the U.S. It was formally approved the same day that Kyiv used its first U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles against Russia.
But while the chances of Putin deploying a devastating nuclear weapon in his war with Ukraine are never nil, world leaders and analysts alike expressed doubts that the change amounted to much more than a new and more intense effort to deter the West.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told NBC News that he saw no indication that Moscow is imminently intent on using nuclear weapons.
“I don’t see a change in their strategic force posture and so we’ll continue to remain vigilant in this regard,” he said on the 1,000th day since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor.
“He has rattled his nuclear saber quite a bit and this is dangerous behavior,” Austin said of Putin.
Kyiv’s allies in Europe were just as unmoved in public as Washington.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told a news conference in Brazil on Tuesday that the “irresponsible rhetoric coming from Russia … is not going to deter our support for Ukraine.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot dismissed Putin’s decision as “rhetoric,” adding that “we are not intimidated.” European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell also condemned Putin’s threat of nuclear escalation as “completely irresponsible.”
The Kremlin seemed eager to play up the idea of rising tensions.
Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the state news agency Tass on Wednesday that a special hotline designed to calm crises between the Kremlin and the White House is not currently in use.
But behind those remarks from Western officials lies a sense that the change to Russia’s nuclear doctrine constitutes a propaganda tool — backed by a powerful arsenal but weakened by its repeated use — rather than any dramatic shift in Moscow’s plans, experts told NBC News.
“Russia’s move will tie in with the campaign by its backers in the West to paint the easing of restrictions on ATACMS strikes into Russia as a dangerous escalation,” said Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow with the London-based think-tank Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia program.
“Since there’s little Russia can do in response in practical terms, it turns to threatening language on paper to undermine the resolve of the outgoing Biden administration. That’s understandable — direct and indirect nuclear threats have been so effective in the past in deterring Biden from backing Ukraine fully, that it would be disappointing for Moscow if this latest move didn’t make a difference,” Giles told NBC News.
The Biden administration’s reversal on letting Kyiv use long-range American weapons for limited strikes inside Russia followed months of pleading from Ukraine and warnings of dire consequences from Moscow.
Intimidation has long been a favored tool of the Kremlin in its attempts to shape Western policy, and the Kremlin’s doctrinal changes were once again backed by grave threats from some of its leading public advocates.
“Our enemies are forced to admit that the determination of the Russian President to firmly defend the fundamental interests of the country by all available means narrows the room for maneuver for Washington and Brussels. Attempts by individual NATO allies to participate in providing for possible long-range strikes with Western weapons deep into Russian territory will not go unpunished,” Putin’s spy chief Sergei Naryshkin said in an interview with the magazine National Defense.
“Russia’s new nuclear doctrine means NATO missiles fired against our country could be deemed an attack by the bloc on Russia,” former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said. “Russia could retaliate with WMD against Kiev and key NATO facilities, wherever they’re located. That means World War III,” added Medvedev, who is now the deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council.
For all that observers will have been poring over the small print of the updated document Putin signed Tuesday, the power to unleash nuclear war is ultimately concentrated in the hands of the Russian leader alone.
“In all, the new doctrine says that Russia will use nuclear weapons whenever the President decides to do so,” William Alberque, former director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said in a post on X.
Still, the steady bloodshed of the war in Ukraine over the past two years and Putin’s unpredictable nature mean that any nuclear posturing cannot be dismissed out of hand, analysts say.
“The doctrinal changes have indeed been in the works for some time. It does appear that the timing of the decree was chosen deliberately, to send a (strong) signal of disapproval of the decision to give the authorization,” said Pavel Podvig, an expert on Russia’s nuclear forces.
A nuclear strike would nonetheless make little strategic sense, he said, especially at a time when Russia’s military is making territorial gains inside Ukraine and such an escalation would risk blowback even from Moscow’s allies.
“It would be a serious gamble,” Podvig, a senior researcher at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research, said in an email. “But I cannot, however, rule out that the Kremlin is prepared to take its chances. Especially if Moscow feels that it can count on a weak response.”
