On November 19, 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved changes to the national nuclear doctrine, signaling a significant shift in Russia’s approach to the ongoing Ukraine conflict. These changes intensify the immediate stakes but also underscore the fragility of the global nuclear security architecture.
The doctrine now says an attack from a non-nuclear state, under the backing of a nuclear power, will be treated as a joint attack on Russia. Now, a conventional attack on Russia could meet the criteria for a nuclear response. Nuclear weapons can also be utilized if Belarus, Russia’s strategic ally, is being attacked as well.
Russia’s change to the nuclear doctrine comes after US President Joe Biden allowed Ukraine to strike deep into Russia’s territory. President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike back at Russia likely materialized after talks with President-elect Donald Trump. By empowering Ukraine, the current administration aims to provide Kyiv with a significantly better bargaining position if or when Donald Trump pursues a deal to stop the war in Ukraine.
From Moscow’s perspective, changing nuclear doctrine may be an answer to President Biden enabling Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory. The subsequent use of the “Oreshnik” hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile on November 21 is a further demonstration of Russia’s intent to abide by the renewed nuclear doctrine. The strike can also be interpreted as a signal to influence the decision-makers in the US and Europe to stop supplying advanced weapons to Ukraine. Consequently, Moscow sought to use its military capabilities to underscore that Russia remains steadfast in its war effort against Ukraine.
The latest developments in Ukraine suggest a worrying dynamic. Recent changes highlight the troubling tendency of a faltering global nuclear security architecture. Although the ghost of a possible nuclear escalation in the Ukrainian war roams free again, there are reasons to doubt the grim nuclear future. A constellation of constraints prevents Russia from exercising the option of the first nuclear strike.
The overall conflict dynamic in the Ukrainian war is one of the key reasons illustrating why using nuclear weapons by Russia is not in Moscow’s interests. While Russia is far from being in a good position, it is hard to describe its situation in Ukraine as hopeless. Moscow maintains superiority over Kyiv, considering Russia’s superior military capabilities and human power. Permission granted by President Biden to strike targets in Russia is unlikely to be a game-changer for Ukraine. The key reason is Kyiv’s limited ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) arsenal. Ukrainian authorities will have to prioritize its targets carefully.
Thus, despite increasing Ukrainian capabilities on paper, Kyiv will be unable to cause a major shift on the battlefield unless the US and other states provide a significant number of long-range missiles.
While Ukraine’s limited supply of ATACMS limits its ability to achieve a military breakthrough, these limitations underscore a broader reality: the balance of power remains tilted in Russia’s favor. As Moscow maintains its superiority in conventional warfare, a potential nuclear escalation will bring several profound global implications for Russia and other international actors.
A nuclear strike would cause significant criticism from the international community, further isolating Moscow and damaging its global image. This point is especially critical given the sanctions already imposed on Russia. A first strike would likely lead to even harsher sanctions, compounding Russia’s economic struggles. Regional powers and Russia’s important trade partners, including China and India, would also distance themselves from Russia, fearing backlash from Western nations.
Furthermore, commodities markets are likely to crash as a result. Rapidly decreasing oil and gas prices will dramatically impact Russia’s economy, pushing it closer to financial chaos. In September 2024, Reuters reported that the Russian Ministry of Economy revised its 2024 oil and gas export sales forecasts by $17.4 billion from the previous estimate of $239.7 billion. Additionally, the same report suggests that Russian decision-makers expect oil sales to generate $236.5 billion for the state budget in 2025, an increase from $226.2 billion in the previous forecast. Consequently, Moscow’s first use of nuclear weapons will be a self-damaging move.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that nuclear weapons are designed to deter a conflict. Once used, nuclear weapons cease being a deterrent, therefore becoming a target and threat. The high destructive potential of nuclear weapons will necessitate other states to eliminate them, consequently adversely impacting national security.
Consequently, Moscow’s strategic adversaries will face a tough dilemma. Disregarding a hypothetical strike by Moscow will increase insecurity, while trying to destroy Russia’s nuclear arsenal will certainly lead to an all-out nuclear war. This challenging predicament would place all international actors in a very poor position, leading to increased uncertainty.
The key principle of international security rests on the idea of predictability. Once nuclear weapons are used, the system will become highly volatile, thus increasing the likelihood of a large-scale nuclear exchange and reducing the chances of any state’s survival.
Any country that will use nuclear weapons will completely shatter the existing balance within the international relations system.
Consequently, incredibly high risks and the likelihood of a nuclear war make international actors highly reluctant to use nuclear weapons, and Russia is not an exception to this rule. The modification of the nuclear doctrine by the Kremlin is another deterrent to Ukraine’s international partners, which emphasizes the devastating consequences Moscow may unleash.
Overall, the modification of Russia’s nuclear doctrine and President Biden’s decision to allow deep strikes into Russia can be described as escalations aiming to de-escalate. The change of nuclear doctrine highlights the dangerous escalation in the war in Ukraine. However, a myriad of political, economic, diplomatic, and strategic considerations prevents Moscow from actually landing the first nuclear strike against Ukraine or any other state.
The global implications are profound, including economic instability and the shattering of international security. Current discourse indicates significant issues and the erosion of the taboo imposed on the use of nuclear weapons before the global order succumbs to nuclear chaos.
