Who is Pete Hegseth? The Ultimate Choice for Defense Secretary by Trump 2.0!
Read More
In the era of the shifting of the geopolitical axes, Russia’s nuclear strategy has become one of the main issues of modern world security. In recent years, when Russia has released a new nuclear strategy, it has exhibited a more aggressive posture, which has caused concern in the White House and within NATO allies. Some of the changes that exist in the doctrines are provisions for the first strike and the linking of nuclear and conventional forces, creating a controversy between defense and attack.
This article examines key features of Russia’s updated nuclear strategy and assesses whether it is a toxic message to the United States or a threat to world peace. Using historical references, statistics, and insights from industry specialists, our goal is to give the reader a clear picture of the current and future development of the nuclear sector.
The nuclear policy of Russia has changed dramatically since the time of the Cold War. The Soviet Union practiced the policy of no first use during most of the Cold War in order to avoid provoking the enemy. Nevertheless, the collapse of the Soviet Union and what Russians saw as NATO expansion to the east forced a radical change in Russian strategic thinking.
1993 Doctrine: The first post-Soviet doctrine provided for the use of nuclear weapons in response to large-scale conventional attacks of the aggressor that threatened the existence of the state.
2000 Doctrine: A radical change that was made involved the use of limited nuclear strikes to counter conventional aggression through ‘de-escalation’. This concept was in harmony with the Russian efforts to strike a balance with NATO’s conventional armed forces.
2010 Doctrine: A new version of de-escalation was developed with a new focus on deterrence and the counter of potential threats from NATO’s missile defense systems.
In 2024, Russia will possess the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, with more than 5,500 nuclear warheads. The U.S. stands second with 5,044 warheads, as per the Federation of American Scientists. Also, Russia also has paid attention to the upgrading of its strategic nuclear delivery platforms like the RS-28 Sarmat Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, also known as “Satan II”.
The 2020 update contains new, sharp changes that mirror Russia’s escalating hostility towards the West. The doctrine has been upgraded with more outspoken provisions, causing concern around the globe.
Russia’s new policy permits nuclear strikes in situations beyond existential threats, such as:
These are the new developments that greatly deviate from the traditional deterrence models.
Although the doctrine does not provide for pre-emption, some Russian leaders have come out public to say that Russia could consider the use of pre-emptive nuclear strikes. According to Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of the Russian Security Council, in 2023, Russia “would not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons” if its interests were at stake.
While in the preceding Cold War period, strategic nuclear weapons were the main frame of reference, tactical nuclear weapons have been of growing importance in Russia. These smaller, tactical devices are designed for employment in regional conflicts, thus moving towards the operational level of conflict.
The new doctrine has increased the rivalry between Washington and Moscow, as both view these changes as provocative. These doctrinal shifts underscore the following challenges:
Russia’s recently adopted more permissive nuclear use policy erodes strategic stability by introducing extravagance, which heightens the chances of misperception. The U.S. considers this as a calculated attempt to force NATO to reduce its force build-up in the eastern part of the region.
The recent upgrade of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and the creation of new weapons, such as hypersonic missiles, has made the US improve its nuclear arsenal. The new administration of Joe Biden has set aside more than $60 billion in the 2024 budget to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal, including an overhaul of Minuteman III ICBMs.
However, the United States has conventional military dominance with a defense budget of $886 billion, and Russia’s nuclear strategy aims to counterbalance this. Russia is thus competing with the United States for mastery of conventional force employment in the Baltic Sea region, the High North, and Eastern Europe.
Russia’s new doctrine has drawn a reaction from NATO and other international actors that can be seen as an escalation of the conflict.
Increased Readiness: NATO has enhanced the approach to nuclear strategy by introducing new tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and practicing nuclear ¬deterrence.
Enhanced Defense Spending: Combined defense spending of NATO member nations was up by 7.9% in 2023, owing to the Russian threat of nuclear deployment.
According to the experts, Russia’s integration of tactical nuclear weapons brings the wars closer to the use of nuclear weapons. A 2023 study from the RAND Corporation established that there has been a 34 percent increase in close calls between the U.S. and Russian forces since 2014, which underlines the vulnerability of deterrence in contemporary conditions.
• Case Study:
In March 2023, a Russian fighter jet came into contact with an American reconnaissance drone in the Black Sea, increasing tensions over the miscalculation of potential conflict.
Russia’s updated strategic nuclear doctrine is a deliberate response to the emerging threat from the West but comes with a high probability of a spiral effect. Expanding the criteria for nuclear use and incorporating tactical weapons in conventional approaches, Moscow has expressed both the determination and the propensity for escalating tensions. In this case, the U.S. and its allies must, therefore, work on how to balance the use of force and diplomacy. New rounds of arms control negotiations alongside CBMs are crucial to avoid catastrophic misperceptions.
However, the accomplishment of these tasks will be possible only if both sides are ready to subordinate their national interests to the goals of the stable development of the global community – a task that seems almost impossible in the contemporary world.
