Українською читайте тут.
How Russian propagandists presented the changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine.
This is not the first time Russia has threatened the world with the use of nuclear weapons. On February 24, 2022, when Putin announced the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he warned the international community against resisting Russia's attack and said that "Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states."
Hints and threats of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine and the West, particularly the U.S., have repeatedly been made by the Kremlin since the start of Russia’s full-scale aggression. In June 2024, the Russian president mentioned that Russia was ready to make changes to its nuclear doctrine, though at that time, he "did not see the need for it." However, on September 25 of this year, changes were indeed made to Russia's nuclear doctrine, which had been outlined in 2020. Dmitry Medvedev, the former president of Russia and author of numerous nuclear threats, called this “an event that had been long anticipated” on his Telegram channel.
"The response will be nuclear"
Now, according to the updated "Fundamentals of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence," a massive launch and the crossing of Russia's borders by aerospace attack systems, including planes, missiles, and drones, "under certain conditions" could serve as grounds for Moscow to use nuclear weapons. This refers to an attack not necessarily with nuclear weapons but with conventional weapons, which creates a "critical threat to Russia's sovereignty," as Putin said.
However, these "certain conditions" and what Russia considers a "critical threat" to its sovereignty remain unclear. It seems such vague language was intentionally chosen to give Russia flexibility when deciding whether to use nuclear weapons. Russian propagandists have had to invent "new red lines" themselves, offering their own interpretations of the conditions under which the updated doctrine would come into play. For example, in a pro-Kremlin Telegram channel with over 300,000 subscribers, this change was interpreted as follows:
"If troops remain in the Kursk region, or if drones once again massively fly toward Russia, the response will be nuclear."
The same Telegram channel added:
"Most Russians are ready to support this difficult decision and give the enemy 48 hours for civilians to evacuate from the target area of tactical nuclear weapons. And finally, deliver a decisive and victorious strike on Western Ukraine."
On the night of September 29, four days after the announcement of changes to Russia's nuclear doctrine, Ukrainian drones attacked a large ammunition depot near the village of Kotluban in the Volgograd region. At that time, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported that 125 drones allegedly launched from Ukraine were shot down over Russian territory. A Russian Telegram channel reacted by posting a message which garnered 112,000 views:
"Today, someone wiped their feet on the updated nuclear doctrine by launching over a hundred drones at Russia."
Peter Dickinson, an expert from the Atlantic Council, wrote in a September 26 article that Russia's nuclear threats are primarily directed against Ukraine’s democratic partner states. He noted that Russia did not use nuclear weapons after attacks on its territory or after the occupation of part of the Kursk region. Dickinson also argued that the fear of nuclear threats among Western leaders allowed the Kremlin to influence the reduction of arms supplies to Kyiv and led to absurd restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself.
"More than two and a half years have passed since the start of Russia's invasion, and it should now be clear that Vladimir Putin will continue escalating his nuclear blackmail until it stops being effective. So far, Putin's ability to intimidate the West has been his greatest success in the entire war," the author concluded.
"Joint attack on Russia"
Regarding the updated Russian state nuclear deterrence policy, which states that "aggression by a non-nuclear state with the involvement or support of a nuclear state will be considered a joint attack on Russia," Russian propaganda posts primarily focused on how this change in doctrine should force the West to abandon the idea of lifting the ban on Ukraine using Western long-range missiles to strike Russian territory. One propagandist post on Telegram, which garnered over 85,000 views, stated:
"Despite extensive announcements during Zelenskyy's visit to the U.S., he never received the infamous 'permission' to use missiles on Russian territory. The topic was generally brushed aside, and it's evident that in this case, the Russian president's timely and clearly expressed position, which leaves no room for ambiguity, worked."
Another Telegram channel, with 70,000 subscribers, stated that attacks with Western long-range missiles required approval from the U.S. and were "supposed to 'kick-off' after Mr. Biden's meeting with Mr. Zelenskyy... until the doctrine was changed."
Indeed, in late September, President Zelenskyy visited the U.S., where he attended the 79th U.N. General Assembly and held bilateral meetings. The Ukrainian president met with U.S. President Joe Biden on September 26—one day after changes to Russia's nuclear doctrine were made.
At the 79th U.N. General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also warned Western countries against making "reckless decisions":
"When we speak publicly, especially when the president speaks publicly, we assume those interested in our approaches are listening. (...) When it becomes clear whether they (the Western countries—Detector Media’s note) will grant Ukraine permission for long-range weapons, then it will be evident how well they understood what they heard."
Russia also extended its so-called "nuclear umbrella" to Belarus as a member of the "Union State" by updating its nuclear doctrine. In this context, Russian propaganda Telegram channels often referenced Belarusian dictator Lukashenko's response to the changes in Russia's nuclear policy:
"An attack on Belarus is World War III. Thank you, recently Putin confirmed this by amending the nuclear doctrine, stating that an attack on Russia and Belarus means we will use nuclear weapons. (…) NATO is NATO. The Americans and Poles are already lined up along the border especially the Polish one. We know that the Polish leadership is already rubbing its hands."
According to Lukashenko, the "Polish threat" is real, though it remains unclear who Poland is supposedly preparing to attack—Belarus or Western Ukraine, as Russia claims.
In contrast to the words of Belarus' self-proclaimed president, propagandists cited Polish President Andrzej Duda’s reaction to the changes in Russia's nuclear doctrine. Duda said, "Whoever uses nuclear weapons first will be cursed." In a pro-Russian Telegram channel with 161,000 subscribers, it was written that "Duda accidentally cursed the USA," implying that the U.S. was the first to use nuclear weapons against another country. The channel also added that the Polish president not only "showed his Russophobia" but also demonstrated complete ignorance of history.
Propagandists also noted the joint statement made by China, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and eleven other countries from the "Global South" on the inadmissibility of using nuclear weapons, which was released on September 27. In several Russian Telegram channels, it was claimed that "this is where all of Putin's nuclear doctrines end," implying that even Russia’s strategic partner, China, does not approve of the ongoing nuclear threats. Although Russia was not directly mentioned in the statement, one Telegram channel with 268,000 subscribers commented that "it's clear who this is addressed to" and added:
"It’s quite common to think that Putin fears disapproval from his 'partners,' who provide Russia with sanctions relief and diplomatic cover, far more than Western reactions. It is also important that the statement mentions nuclear power plants—this is in response to numerous warnings from Ukraine that Russia is preparing strikes on Ukrainian nuclear energy facilities ahead of winter."
"Shoigu? Gerasimov?"
Several propaganda Telegram channels noted that at the meeting where Putin announced changes to the nuclear doctrine, neither Russian Security Council Secretary Shoigu nor Russian Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov was present, although they "should have been." This absence concerned some propagandists. One pro-Kremlin Telegram channel searched for an explanation and eventually provided one. According to the propagandists, "Gerasimov is busy with frontline affairs (such as the clearing of the Kursk region, the capture of Vuhledar, and the liberation of Ukrainsk)," while Shoigu is supposedly "occupied with precautionary matters: discussing cooperation with other (including nuclear) states in the event of massive enemy attacks."
The absence of these key figures at the meeting seemed even stranger since, following the announcement of the doctrine changes, Putin's press secretary, Peskov, stated that the Russian Ministry of Defense would determine whether the conditions for using nuclear weapons have been met. However, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, said that Putin himself would ultimately make the decision to use nuclear weapons.
The propagandists’ rhetoric surrounding the nuclear doctrine changes can be summed up by a post viewed 180,000 times, which included the phrase, allegedly from the Kremlin, "if not the last warning, then the next-to-last one for sure."
The update to Russia's nuclear doctrine triggered a reaction among Russian propagandists. They argued that the document update was necessary given the threats posed to Russia, supposedly by Western actions. However, Moscow’s constant shifting of so-called "red lines" has become tiresome for some propagandists, forcing them to justify each new change. Ultimately, Putin’s announcement about the nuclear doctrine update came during Zelenskyy's visit to the U.S., and most propagandists agreed that it was "timely."
Main page illustration and infographic by Nataliya Lobach
