Are nuclear weapons a shield or a sword of the superpowers?

Any armed confrontation after its end becomes a research subject for many years. The military, politicians, economists, and other specialists comprehensively analyze the course and outcome of the war, mainly to avoid the mistakes of the belligerents in future conflicts. The end of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict appears to be a long way off, but several important conclusions can be drawn today. As we know, Russia is one of the members of the nuclear club, a country that not only uses the peaceful atom but also has the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads, which it can deliver to the target on various launchers, such as ground-based, underwater, surface-based ballistic missiles, as well as by air with the help of strategic bombers with nuclear bombs on board.

The total number of warheads, including those removed from service, is 5244 for the United States (-184), and 5889 for Russia (-88). In total, about 3844 warheads are deployed on missiles and aircraft in the world. Nine nuclear powers - Great Britain, Israel, India, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, USA, France - continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals.

All military doctrines of the above countries indicate that nuclear weapons can be also used for preemptive strikes. This fully applies to Russia, where on June 2, 2020, Vladimir Putin approved by his decree “The Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence”. The criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in comparison with the military doctrine approved in 2010 have not changed: Moscow can use them in response to an attack on it or its allies using nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or in the event of aggression with conventional weapons, if “the very existence of the state is endangered.” Western experts were especially interested in paragraph 4 of this document, which says that one of the goals of nuclear deterrence is "preventing the escalation of hostilities and their termination on terms acceptable to Russia." According to experts, this may mean that Russia has a doctrine of "escalation for de-escalation", i.e., launching a nuclear strike to end a war being waged by conventional means.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, against the backdrop of unsuccessful attempts by Russian groups to capture Kyiv, the withdrawal from Kherson, and other failures of the early phase of the war, Russia has repeatedly announced the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. The reason for such an extreme step was the so-called Western intervention in the conflict on the side of Ukraine and the attacks of Ukrainian troops on the "newly annexed territories" - the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, as well as the LPR and the DPR.

What was the reaction of the West to these threats? How did Russia's allies react?

In the West, only the media showed some anxiety, while the political leadership calmly continued to make decisions to increase the supply of all types of weapons to Ukraine, as well as humanitarian and financial assistance. Moreover, as a response, NATO mentioned conventional strikes by the alliance, thus presenting the Alliance as a more civilized structure that eschews inhumane methods of warfare.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, in turn, personally warned Russian President Putin against using nuclear weapons in the conflict in Ukraine. A similar conversation took place during the state visit of Xi Jinping to Moscow in March 2023. It is noted that the provisions on the unacceptability of the use of nuclear weapons were included in the joint statement of the two leaders also at the suggestion of the Chinese leader.

So why is the world so indifferent (on the part of the West) and negative (on the part of China) about Russia's "legitimate" right to use nuclear weapons in an attempt to repel Ukraine's attacks on "native Russian" territories? The reason for this is simple - these territories are considered exclusively by Russia itself; the rest of the world recognizes the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the 1991 borders, and in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the world community, Russia is an aggressor who has invaded foreign territory. World condemnation and isolation is the only consequence for Russia in this scenario. And that is why the West is calm and continues to help Ukraine in every way it can.