Russia - General Discussion.

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Some talks around altering the Russian nuclear doctrine. Kommersant talked to a few Russian experts on the subject and here is what they had to say, thought some may be interested. I used google translate for the descriptions of who the people are. The rest are summaries in my own words.


Alexey Arbatov
Head of the International Security Center of the National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations named after E. M. Primakov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO RAS), Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

- He says that while doctrine allows for different interpretations and debate around it, the current doctrine is the best they ever had. He is proposing only one rather boring change and that is to include the allies into it. In other words, Russia can use nuclear weapons when their allies are attacked with conventional weapons and the existence of their state is threatened. Basically the same “rule” they currently apply to Russia.

Grigory Berdennikov
Expert of the Center for Energy and Security, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, who oversaw non-proliferation and arms control issues, former Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and international organizations in Vienna

- This guy clearly had done some extensive work in the area. He thinks that in the current situation it would not be appropriate to have stricter restrictions than the Russian opponents have. He stresses, however, that there should be no obligation for the state to use nuclear weapons in any situation. In other words, the decision has to be made by the competent people, the highest power.

Furthermore, he is suggesting that Russia should align their nuclear doctrine with the agreements reached in 1995 (between Russia, USA, Great Britain, France, and China) where Russia agreed not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states, unless those states attack Russia and are supported by another nuclear state. Here is drawing a parallel between Ukraine that is supported by the US (of course, France and the UK as well) and is currently attacking Russian territory. He suggests that drone attack on Kremlin and Kursk incursion would clearly fall under these circumstances. He further suggests that since this clause had already been agreed upon previously, the United States, UK, and France would have limited ability to criticize Russia for such a change.

Vasily Kashin
Director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the National Research University "Higher School of Economics", Senior Researcher of the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences

- His idea is that the situation from the military-technical perspective changed quite bit as there is now a wide availability of high-precision short- and medium-range weapons, including ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles, as well as the UAVs. At the same time, the level of contradiction between Russia and the West (he calls it between major powers) is equivalent to that of the early Cold War years. Russia is involved in the hybrid war with NATO, while United States is deploying short- and medium-range (and in the future hypersonic) missiles in Europe. In these dangerous circumstances, he argues, the doctrine has to be very specific and account for the potential conflict between Russia and NATO, including the Ukrainian issue.

So he proposes that the threshold for nuclear use should be lowered and the following should be added to the existing doctrine:
1) nuclear weapons can be used in the event of a naval blockade of Russia or a Russian region (Kaliningrad);
2) nuclear weapons will be used (note the choice of “will be used” here) in case of an attack on nuclear energy infrastructure or other hazardous industries, in the event of serious contamination of the area;
3) in response of an attempt to eliminate political leadership of Russia;
4) in response to a large-scale attack with conventional weapons on Russian populated areas (basically includes everywhere where people live, ie villages, towns, cities) and infrastructure.

I am assuming that “will be used” also applies to 3) and 4).

Nothing to do with the doctrine, but he also reiterates that it is imperative to abandon the initiative of 1991 to deploy nuclear weapons in central storage facilities, and urgently start production and deployment of short- and medium-range missile systems.

Vasily Lata
Chief Researcher of the Military Academy of Strategic Missile Forces, retired Lieutenant General, Board Member of the PIR Center

- He says he had limited participation in the development of the current doctrine, where amid disagreements between the MoD and Minister of Foreign Affairs, MoFA’s soft version was adopted, where Russia would not use the nukes first. The idea, according to him, was that all disagreements would be sorted diplomatically. Later they added “existential threat” to the doctrine. Despite the soft version, he says, the purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence.

However, in his opinion, the rules of international relations have changed and keep changing, and not for the better. The Western elites and political leadership, as well as their satellites, have lost the sense of fear and the thresholds agreed earlier are forgotten and no longer working. Thus, he is suggesting to define new thresholds of when the nuclear weapons will be used without any ambiguity. Russia should also abandon the “non-use of nuclear weapons first” and gradually increase the nuclear readiness and then inflict “demonstration and de-escalations strikes” with tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in a situation where there is infringement on Russian national interests and state security.

Now that is a little nutty (that’s from me, lol, not from the guy, in case it isn’t clear).

Sergey Rogov
Scientific Director of the Institute of the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Member of the Russian Council for International Affairs

- Along the same line of some previous comments, the current doctrine had served its purpose well, but the situation is now different. He says that the United States has set the goal to defeat both Russia and China, which is a departure from the recognition that there could be no winners in a nuclear conflict. Some words about the new US doctrine, which isn’t published, but includes the possibility of use of tactical nuclear weapons in the regions where NATO doesn’t have overwhelming numerical superiority over conventional Russian Forces (ie, Baltic States), as well as previously mentioned recognition of deployment of the American missiles in Germany that can reach European parts of Russia. He also talks about the threat to St Petersburg and Murmansk posed by the accession of Finland into the ranks of NATO and mentions the Ukrainian strikes on the Russian airfields with strategic bombers and early detection radars, threats to Zaporozhie and Kursk nuclear power plants.

Having said that, he considers it would be wrong for Russia to reserve the right to preemptively strike first, but some specific formulations and measures that would demonstrate that Russia can react to such threats must be taken. He didn’t specify further.

Dmitry Trenin
Professor-researcher of the National Research University "Higher School of Economics", leading researcher of the Center for International Security of the National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations named after E. M. Primakov of the Russian Academy of Sciences

- A proxy war of the collective west with and an attempt to inflict a “strategic defeat” to Russia, using Ukraine as tool, is forcing Russia to adjust its nuclear doctrine. He thinks that the following would be the most urgent and important changes:
1) the current threshold of use of nuclear weapons (existential threat) is too high and should be reduced to ‘threat to most important strategic interests of Russia”;
2) it should be made clear that Russia is willing to use nukes in the circumstances described above;
3) since NATO is a nuclear alliance and considering the collective nature of the threat created by the West, he would advise to provide for a possibility of nuclear strike on a non-nuclear NATO state.

Trenin is obviously an all out nuts, but those who follow are probably aware.


Lately, I saw the discussion of this subject taking place and today saw a few people talking about this particular article. Thought some here would be interested and I would provide some context and a bit more detailed summary, which I think is beneficial. Of course, this has nothing to do with the practical changes to the doctrine, but it surely shows different points of view and where the wind blows.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Not sure this is the right place for this piece of news, but I’ll put it here.

Durov, the guy behind Telegram, was arrested in France upon arrival in his private jet. No details as to why yet.

In continuation of Durov’s arrest, a couple of articles on the subject, for those interested.

One is from Politico outlining details of investigation, arrest, and whatnot. It’s a good read.


Second is from CEPA that (briefly) discusses Durov’s history and social media in general. Also a good read.


I feel like this goes beyond the topic of this thread, but I am not sure where else to post it.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
As promised in the RU-UA War thread a few days ago, a little more on the Russian nuclear doctrine.

A couple of posts above, I posted a few Russian expert opinions on the subject from a Kommersant article. Since then, Kommersant posted another rather wide interview with another Russian expert, who is one of the hawks (read a nut), but has more influence than any of the people in the previous article (perhaps why an interview instead of brief opinion). This man is Sergey Karaganov.


People can read the entire article via google translate, but I will outline his ideas in my own words and direct quotes.

Sergey Karaganov
A well-known political scientist, honorary chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, scientific director of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the Higher School of Economics. Chairman of the Editorial Board of the journal "Russia in Global Politics".

- He doesn’t know what wording will be included in the amended doctrine, but he surely can make some suggestions. First, however, he comments on the current doctrine.
- The current doctrine is completely irresponsible. It reeks of the 60-70s. It practically excludes the most powerful argument in Russia’s military and foreign policy arsenal. He thinks it is not only wrong, but also immoral in the highest degree. Millions of people have died in days past for this political instrument, the nuclear shield. It is rather a history of great heroism and selflessness during the war, hunger, etc. But, he thinks, Russia had suddenly decided to forget about all that.
- Now is the time to declare that Russia will respond with a nuclear strike to any massive attacks/strikes on its territory.
- At the same time, there should be introduced a concept of “nuclear escalation” - basically, steps that would precede the nuclear strike to convince the potential or real enemy that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons.
- The idea at core is that the doctrine should clearly reflect to all current and future opponents that Russia will use the nuclear arsenal at their disposal.
- Not only it is Russia’s responsibility to their citizens, who are currently dying at the frontline and civilians who are killed in peaceful cities, but to the entire world.
- If the nuclear deterrence is not reactivated, the world will drown in wars, which will undoubtedly lead to the use of nuclear weapons and the WW3.
- In order to avoid that, the nuclear factor must be intensified to convince Russia’s opponents that nuclear weapons will be used in any encroachment on Russian territory and citizens. He says that he “really contributed to such changes”.
- When asked why he thinks the current doctrine is outdated if the latest additions to it were signed only 4 years ago, he says that it is based on postulates, some of which weren’t Russian to begin with, from the last century. He also greatly blames himself for not expressing his great outrage publicly when the new document was revealed, but only expressing his opinion to a small circle of experts.
- Currently, it is anything but a doctrine: it is based on the illusions from the last century, a natural rejection of nuclear weapons. That is, however, understandable because of the human nature - who would want to use nuclear weapons?
- The interviewer here says that she hopes no one, to which he replies he more than understands that.
- The problem is that pacifists live because others fight for them and currently there are tens of thousand fighting for them and dying in the fields and if this continues, this dying will turn to the cities as well because the war will inevitably grow.
- Russia will continue draining itself on the so-called line of contact, spending gigantic resources, while competing with “half a hundred” countries whose economies are superior to Russia’s. Both, the former and the latter (draining and competing), will lead the country, that finally reached a certain level of prosperity and comfort, to a decline and possibly disintegration.
- Question is asked about the practical significance of the amendments to the doctrine and she mentions that the doctrine of 2010 had two scenarios for use of nuclear weapons, while amendments of 2020 brought it up to four.
- Karaganov says it will oblige their military to prepare for nuclear strikes. The “existential threat to the state” is too “ephemeral” of a scenario to even talk about it, a mockery of common sense.
- The current doctrine does not serve the function of deterrent and prevents the use of other very useful functions of the nuclear arsenal.
- Russia brought the matter to the point where the opponent is convinced that there are almost no circumstances that will trigger use of nuclear weapons.
- When talks of “tightening” the nuclear doctrine began about 1.5 years ago (in which he says he actively participated), there was a bit of reckoning in the west and talks of the need to avoid nuclear escalation at any cost.
- Europeans have completely lost their minds and forgot what war is, the Americans began treading much more carefully.
- The West is promoting the idea that Russia is not supported by the majority of the world, but China and other countries understand the logic behind Russia’s actions, including the motives behind amending its nuclear doctrine.
- Predictions and statements by the West about the countries from the world majority turning away from Russia due to tightening its nuclear doctrine is just an anecdote, psychological warfare.
- The interviewer says that Chinese were pretty clear in their statements that nuclear weapons should not be used and nuclear war should not be started.
- Karaganov says he somewhat understands this official position because strengthening the nuclear deterrence would not be in their interest because China is still weaker in this area.
- Statements signed by the “Nuclear Five” in 2022, about no winners in nuclear war and that it cannot be unleashed, are nothing more than some kind of intellectual mistake.
- From there it follows that any other type of war can be unleashed and they can destroy each other with any other weapons available to them, which is nonsense because then it was believed that there could be no war between nuclear powers.
- Today, nuclear NATO, led by the United States, is in full out war with Russia, using Ukrainian meat and if this madness doesn’t stop, they will start feeding others into the grinder.
- Nuclear weapons are first and foremost the weapons of peace and prevention of war.
- Russia was forced to adopt the current doctrine in the 90s, which paved the road for nonnuclear aggression around the world.
- It opened the road to NATO expansion because Russia has completely abandoned the nuclear factor as an instrument of the foreign policy, which was a crime.
- The interviewer says that in the statements of the “Nuclear Five” of Jan 3, 2022, they specifically stressed that confrontation of any kind between the nuclear states is not allowed.
- Karaganov agrees and says that this is a step in the right direction; however, Russia didn’t abandon its previous commitment (from the doctrine), which not only carries a pacifist message, but also unties the hands of other countries, whose arsenal of conventional weapons and economic might increases their chances of winning in interstate confrontation.
- The United States always was and always will be to use nuclear weapons first.
- While use of nuclear of weapons would lead to many innocent deaths, you have to convince your opponent that you are ready to use these weapons.
- Limited use of nuclear weapons will not lead to a total apocalypse and every country has plans of such “dosed” use in certain scenarios.
- United States always lied and continues to lie that their nuclear guarantees extend to its allies.
- It’s important to strengthen nuclear doctrine and Russian leadership needs to clearly state that they are ready to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries that support aggression in Ukraine.
- The list of such countries should be compiled by those responsible for such decisions.
- Burns (CIA) is a smart man but he (and the US) is bluffing when talking about the destructive strike with conventional weapons on the Russian forces in and around Ukraine if Russia uses nuclear weapons.
- If that were to happen, Russia would reserve the right for another strike, but on a much larger number of targets through out Europe.
- If they continue the escalation, Russia will be striking American bases in Nato countries and around the world, killing hundreds of thousands of American troops.
- The total war is not going to happen if they will know that Russia will use nuclear weapons.
- Russian opponents need to know this decision will be made by the president because this is his obligation before Russia, world, God.
- It has to be understood that it is the war of annihilation that they are waging against Russia and they won’t stop until Russia is completely demolished.
- The interviewer here says that she doesn’t understand why would Russia put itself in a corner (ie, inevitable use of nukes).
- Any nuclear strike has to preceded by a warning strike with conventional weapons.
- Next thing that Russia should do is strike targets in NATO countries that play a significant role in supplying Kiev regime and if that doesn’t stop them, we should go further (massive nuclear strike against the targets in Europe).
- The interviewer asks about the guarantees that both sides would stop at some moment and prevent destruction of the planet.
- To that, Karaganov says: “There are guarantees at Rossgosstrah (government insurance agency), as you know. What I can guarantee to you is that if we do not reactivate our nuclear deterrence, we are not going to escape humanity’s self destruction, but we could be the first ones to go”.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Grigory Berdennikov
Expert of the Center for Energy and Security, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, who oversaw non-proliferation and arms control issues, former Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and international organizations in Vienna

- This guy clearly had done some extensive work in the area. He thinks that in the current situation it would not be appropriate to have stricter restrictions than the Russian opponents have. He stresses, however, that there should be no obligation for the state to use nuclear weapons in any situation. In other words, the decision has to be made by the competent people, the highest power.

Furthermore, he is suggesting that Russia should align their nuclear doctrine with the agreements reached in 1995 (between Russia, USA, Great Britain, France, and China) where Russia agreed not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states, unless those states attack Russia and are supported by another nuclear state. Here is drawing a parallel between Ukraine that is supported by the US (of course, France and the UK as well) and is currently attacking Russian territory. He suggests that drone attack on Kremlin and Kursk incursion would clearly fall under these circumstances. He further suggests that since this clause had already been agreed upon previously, the United States, UK, and France would have limited ability to criticize Russia for such a change.
After the Security Council meeting in Russia today, it appears that this ^ guy was the closest to the feel of the upcoming changes to the nuclear doctrine. Putin, via Google translate:

What else I would like to draw your attention to. In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation.

The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed. We will consider this possibility already after receiving reliable information about the massive launch of the means of aerospace attack and their crossing of our state border. I mean strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft.

We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including if the enemy, using conventional weapons, poses a critical threat to our sovereignty.


Source is Kremlin.ru: Новости ∙ Президент ∙ События ∙ Президент России

I am not sure we will see anything more concrete on the subject. As of now, however, they can use nukes in Ukraine with accordance to their nuclear doctrine as all of the conditions have officially been met.

Edit: I guess I should say at least Ukraine, as that much (or little?) is clear.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
After the Security Council meeting in Russia today, it appears that this ^ guy was the closest to the feel of the upcoming changes to the nuclear doctrine. Putin, via Google translate:

What else I would like to draw your attention to. In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation.

The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly fixed. We will consider this possibility already after receiving reliable information about the massive launch of the means of aerospace attack and their crossing of our state border. I mean strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft.

We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in case of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State. All these issues have been agreed with the Belarusian side and the President of Belarus. Including if the enemy, using conventional weapons, poses a critical threat to our sovereignty.


Source is Kremlin.ru: Новости ∙ Президент ∙ События ∙ Президент России

I am not sure we will see anything more concrete on the subject. As of now, however, they can use nukes in Ukraine with accordance to their nuclear doctrine as all of the conditions have officially been met.

Edit: I guess I should say at least Ukraine, as that much (or little?) is clear.
I think that this is a misleading conclusion. They could always use nukes in Ukraine if they wanted to. They didn't and I believe they don't. These clarifications are being made likely as a combination of signaling for foreign countries, and for public consumption.
 
Top