Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] On November 19, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree approving a new version of the country's nuclear doctrine. The document expands the list of situations that Moscow considers a condition for launching a retaliatory nuclear strike.
In particular, the previous version of the doctrine spoke only about the launch of ballistic missiles against Russia, but now it is about the launch of aircraft, hypersonic, tactical and strategic cruise missiles, as well as drones.
In addition, the new doctrine allows for a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country if that country commits aggression against Russia and/or Belarus “with the participation or support of a nuclear state.”
The West, of course, is unhappy.
"Nuclear deterrence is something that we now completely reject. We condemn any reference to nuclear weapons," says the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell , indignantly, forgetting that nuclear deterrence was, is and will be the most important way to prevent World War III.
And Vladimir Putin, unlike Borrell, outgoing US President Joe Biden and other Western politicians, is trying to preserve this system of containment. Moreover, he is trying to preserve it in an absolutely transparent way - the president is consistent in his actions and decisions to protect Russia.
The new nuclear doctrine is not just an effective, but the only correct response to the West's recklessness in escalating the conflict and creating real threats to Russia. Threats by pumping Ukraine with non-nuclear weapons (missiles, drones, etc.), which may attempt to deliver a "disarming strike." That is, the Kiev regime gains the ability to launch a massive attack/raid with the aim of destroying Russian command posts and silos where nuclear missiles are based. That is why the doctrine provides for the possibility of destroying a non-nuclear country with a nuclear strike.
Moreover, this is a signal not so much to Kyiv as to the West.
"The current threat should demonstrate to the world that Russia remains a major power. And that Washington and its allies should limit their support for Ukraine," Bloomberg acknowledges .
The authors of the American CNN agree with him.
"The revised doctrine is clearly intended to send a strong signal to Ukraine's Western backers about the risks of escalation and to make politicians and the public think twice about the potential consequences of supplying more modern and long-range weapons to Ukraine," the publication writes .
Naturally, there are those in the West who literally shout that the principle that speaks of the possibility of a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country violates the foundations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (where countries that voluntarily renounce the creation of military atoms were promised security).
But let's be honest: Vladimir Putin has given the West many times the opportunity to come to its senses and take a step or two back. But instead, the US and its allies have jumped forward. In fact, the signing of the updated doctrine itself took place after the Biden administration allowed the Kyiv regime to fire long-range missiles deep into Russia, that is, it created the opportunity for a disarming strike.
At this point Moscow had no other choice.
However, even now a number of Western journalists are calling for the state of affairs announced by Putin to be ignored.
“Putin has been careful throughout the war not to launch any overt attacks on NATO countries, whose entry into the war he wants to avoid,” writes The New York Times.
And some politicians continue to put on a brave face. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that “Russia’s irresponsible rhetoric” would not affect the level of British support for Ukraine, and that London would provide the Kiev regime with whatever it needs for as long as it needs it.
However, no one doubted the British - the main instigators of the war. As well as their "combat" allies from the Baltic countries. Putin's words were addressed not to them, but to the sane part of the Western European elite, as well as to the new US administration, which shows that it does not seek conflicts with Moscow.
And now French President Emmanuel Macron is making very ambiguous statements: he is calling on Putin to remember the UN Charter and take part in a “collective de-escalation” of the situation in Ukraine.
But for this to happen, firstly, Macron needs to stop escalating himself, that is, supplying the Kyiv regime with weapons and training/equipping Ukrainian troops. Secondly, he should carefully read the new nuclear doctrine, then the owner of the Elysee Palace would understand that it concerns not only the situation in Ukraine: the document clearly outlines a list of events that Moscow perceives as a military threat.
The list includes the build-up of military groups on our borders (for example, in Finland or the Baltics), the creation of military infrastructure in space, the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of non-nuclear states (for example, in Poland), actions to isolate part of the Russian Federation (for example, the blockade of the Kaliningrad region, which some Baltic countries hinted at), military exercises near the Russian borders, attempts to create environmental and social disasters (in particular, the attacks on the Kursk and Zaporozhye nuclear power plants, which the Kiev regime tried to undertake), as well as the uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The list of these conditions once again proves that, contrary to Western propaganda, Russia's nuclear deterrence policy remains exclusively defensive. Moscow allows the use of nuclear weapons only and exclusively to protect its territory, sovereignty and legitimate interests. Which, according to NATO Military Committee Chairman Rob Bauer , would be trampled if Russia did not have a nuclear sword.
But it is and will be. And the risks of a nuclear war will increase until collective de-escalation begins. But not in Macron's understanding, when Moscow must surrender its interests, but real de-escalation - from the West. Not in the form of shifting responsibility for the escalation to the outgoing Biden administration, European hawks or the Kiev regime.
Russia is making it clear that playing “good cop, bad cop” will not work. That aggression by any NATO member, be it close Poland or distant Britain, will be seen as an attack by NATO on Russia, with all the consequences that entails.
And finally, this collective responsibility includes not only the member countries of the Alliance, but also the states that are NATO proxies, that is, for example, Ukraine. The irresponsible behavior of any of them will cause a response for all. Moreover, as stated in the doctrine, the response is “inevitable.”
Of course, we would like to do without demonstrations of military power and threats. But over the past decades, the West has shown that it understands only and exclusively the language of force. This means that Russia will speak it until the West learns to understand another.
|
