OSINFO - Open Sources Information

Adopted in 2000, the current Military Doctrine permits Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike or an all-out war. According to Patrushev, the revised document is going to enable Russia to deploy nuclear arms against the aggressor using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, and even local war. "Different variants of the use of nuclear weapons will be allowed for, depending on the situation and enemy's intentions," he said. "A preemptive nuclear strike at the aggressor will be an option in situations critical from the standpoint of national security."

What kind of situation might it be? Invaders in Moscow's outskirts? Elimination of the Russian military-economic infrastructure? Total inability of the Armed Forces to cope with the enemy? And who the aggressor might turn out to be - imperialist predators from the West, Islamic fundamentalists, or Far East pals? What was this reference to local wars? And who will be the judge deciding what situation is critical and what is not? And when the enemy is already at the gates, does "a critical situation" mean the necessity to strike at it on Russia's own territory? What about civilian casualties in Russia? What about the fallout and other consequences?

Sure, Russia could always make a reference to other members of the Atomic Club. Some of their doctrines do not openly allow for nuclear strikes at the enemy but nuclear strikes remain an option all the same which is understood if not admitted out loud. Russia could even recall what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and call it preemptive strikes too. It might even find solace in the fact that nobody really means to invoke this clause of the Military Doctrine... Nuclear weapons are too horrendous an option to treat them with anything but utmost care. If the prospects of their use are inevitable indeed, then every contingency should be described in the regulations to the last detail.

- I can't say I like it that we make such an emphasis on nuclear weapons remaining unwilling or unable to develop conventional forces capable of defending Russia from a local aggression. Nuclear weapons used to be a political factor once, but not now. What we are about to do is let control over them slip from our hands and permit the use of nuclear weapons in local conflicts. Did Georgia instill such a fear in us a year ago? It's not what I'd call logical that we rely on nuclear weapons to solve all problems and simultaneously all but destroy our Ground Forces and our Navy. It is worse than just unreasonable. It is dangerous. The implication is that we will start using nuclear weapons against neighbors. And when Russia becomes a threat to all, other countries will treat it accordingly. And what will it be next - germ or chemical warfare means? Policy of the Soviet Union was absolutely correct in this respect. It was to be only retaliation, nothing else. No more... In a word, I do not think they've given the document the thought they should have given it, considering gravity of the matter.

- The draft Military Doctrine enumerates a spectrum of threats to national security of Russia and its allies, threats serious enough to warrant the use of nuclear weapons. American, French, and British military doctrines allow for the use of nuclear weapons whenever primary national interests are jeopardized. With all respect to nuclear deterrence, I'd say that Russia also needs conventional deterrence means in its arsenals, first and foremost long-range precision weapons.

Moskovsky Komsomolets, October 15, 2009, pp. 1, 3

Andrei Yashlavsky, Lina Panchenko