International

No First Use?

A worsening shift in Russia’s nuclear doctrine has sparked intense global debate about its implications for international stability, particularly against the backdrop of its ongoing conflict with Ukraine and heightened tensions with NATO.

By Muhammad Arslan Qadeer | January 2025


The nuclear doctrine of Russia has long stood as a cornerstone of its national security framework, deeply intertwined with the country’s historical experiences and contemporary geopolitical realities. From the era of Cold War brinkmanship to the complex dynamics of the post-Soviet world, the doctrine has continually evolved, reflecting strategic imperatives and power struggles. The most recent update, signed into law by President Vladimir Putin in November 2024, represents a significant and controversial recalibration of Russia’s nuclear policy, marked by a lower threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. This shift has sparked intense global debate about its implications for international stability, particularly against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine and heightened tensions with NATO.

The evolution of Russia’s nuclear doctrine is best understood as a series of distinct phases, each shaped by specific historical and strategic contexts. During the Soviet era, the doctrine emphasized deterrence, underpinned by the principle of mutual assured destruction. The USSR adhered to a “no first use” policy, projecting nuclear weapons as instruments of last resort in a world precariously balanced on the brink of annihilation. This posture, however, was as much about strategic signaling as it was about deterrence, aiming to constrain adversaries within the confines of Cold War logic.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked a seismic shift in Russia’s security outlook. Faced with economic instability, territorial losses, and diminished global stature, Russia adopted a more assertive nuclear doctrine in 1993. This new posture allowed for the use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear threats, reflecting growing anxieties over NATO’s expansion and the perceived encirclement by Western powers. The doctrine became a tool for deterrence and compensating for conventional military weaknesses, signaling Russia’s determination to safeguard its sovereignty in an increasingly unipolar world.

Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia’s nuclear doctrine underwent further modernization. The doctrines of 2000 and 2010 outlined nuclear weapons as essential to counter existential threats, including large-scale conventional attacks. These revisions reflected a strategic recalibration, emphasizing flexibility and adaptability in the face of evolving security challenges. By 2020, the doctrine had expanded to explicitly address scenarios warranting nuclear use, such as responding to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attacks, strikes on critical infrastructure, or threats to Russia’s sovereignty. These parameters reflected a blend of deterrence and coercive diplomacy designed to protect Moscow’s strategic interests.

However, the latest updates to Russia’s nuclear doctrine represent a significant departure from previous frameworks. The newly introduced provisions broaden the conditions under which nuclear strikes can be justified, signaling a shift in Russia’s strategic calculus. One key change pertains to proxy wars: the doctrine now authorizes nuclear retaliation if a non-nuclear state, supported by a nuclear-armed ally, attacks Russia or its allies. This provision appears tailored to address Western military aid to Ukraine, underscoring Moscow’s growing concerns about NATO’s involvement in regional conflicts.

Another notable shift involves the treatment of conventional threats. The updated doctrine legitimizes nuclear responses to large-scale non-nuclear attacks, including drone strikes. This expansion reflects Russia’s recognition of emerging technologies and unconventional warfare methods that could threaten its security. By lowering the threshold for nuclear use, the doctrine seeks to deter adversaries from exploiting these vulnerabilities, though at the cost of heightened risks of escalation.

Framed as a warning to the West, the doctrine emphasizes Russia’s willingness to escalate if provoked. It is a strategic message to deter NATO intervention and a signal of Moscow’s resolve to safeguard its strategic depth. However, these changes raise critical questions about the balance between deterrence and provocation. While the Kremlin portrays the updated doctrine as defensive, critics argue it increases the likelihood of miscalculation, particularly in ambiguous conflict scenarios.

The geopolitical implications of these changes are far-reaching. At the regional level, the doctrine underscores Russia’s intent to counter Western influence in Eastern Europe. By including proxy conflicts as grounds for nuclear use, Moscow directly addresses NATO’s military support for Ukraine. This provision sends a clear message to Western allies: their involvement in Russia’s sphere of influence will not be tolerated without severe consequences.

Read More