The Kremlin stated on Sunday, 29 September that they have prepared new amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine and are moving to formalise them. This changes the circumstances under which Russia can use nuclear arms, which would effectively facilitate the Kremlin’s ability to launch nuclear strikes. The updates consist largely of revisions to any retaliatory action Russia may undertake, according to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, whereby any conventional attack on the nation that is supported by a nuclear power will be considered a joint attack and thus may be met with the full force of Russia’s nuclear arsenal. According to the Associated Press, this update clearly aims to discourage Ukraine from striking Russia with long-range missiles after the U.S. debated agreeing to requests from Ukraine asking to gain the authority to do so earlier this month.

President Putin, speaking at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council this Wednesday, did not go into detail about the doctrine, instead leaving formulations and vague ideas of the letter of the document, explaining that Russia may respond with nuclear force to conventional attacks on their sovereignty. Furthermore, he did not specify whether the document predicts any nuclear response to attacks. According to M.S.N., in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, N.A.T.O. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg deemed these nuclear threats from Russia reckless, further going on to say that [N.A.T.O.] is closely watching what Russia is doing.

President Biden, speaking at an event in New York supporting the reconstruction of Ukraine on Wednesday, said that “the U.S. is determined to give Ukraine the ability to prevail in this fight for its survival,” according to the Financial Times, which later added that he would announce further actions to support Ukraine’s military. Alexander Gabuev sums up the situation well, stating that “these are only signals for now, but they are the most aggressive and specific ones so far,” per the Financial Times.

This update seems to provide little more than a scare tactic against the West, though the vague wording of the document Putin presented may leave any retaliatory action open to interpretation under international law. It is obvious that this represents an increase in tensions between the West and Russia, though experts argue that it remains to be seen exactly how this escalation plays out. Uncertainty as to what Russian “sovereignty” definitively signifies and whether the term encompasses the five Ukrainian provinces Russia currently occupies will continue to cloud any response the West can formulate towards this issue, as will doubts surrounding what the exact justification for Russian retaliation resembles. What is obvious is that this is a much more aggressive and tangible message from the Kremlin, showcasing its controversial stance on national security which allows retaliation much more easily and significantly to any strike upon claimed Russian territory.

Biden’s response, though proportional, is far from sensible, as the possibility for Russia to launch nuclear weaponry in response to any conventional threat on its territory should worry Washington much more than it seems to. The United States’ decision to arm Ukraine further may be practical in the short run, allowing them to defend themselves more effectively. However, American aid coupled with Ukraine’s obvious desire to perform strikes on weapons infrastructure deeper into Russian territory, evidenced by Ukrainian attacks on weapons installations and logistics hubs with long-range drones, as reported by Al Jazeera, may spell out a much graver scenario than experts have predicted.

It still remains to be seen what the full effects of this new doctrine are. Whether it is a simple scare tactic meant to discourage Ukraine from striking Russian territory with conventional weaponry or a serious threat of nuclear violence, this action has so far not been effective in changing the behavior of the Ukraine’s Western allies. Once the document is formalised, it may discourage Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, though it wouldn’t seem to discourage the U.S. from arming Ukraine further. Regardless, this should lead to a short-lived reduction in violence with a much larger escalation in tensions between the world’s greatest nuclear superpowers. Russia’s new ease of use over their nuclear arsenal may signal a turning point in the Ukraine conflict, though it remains to be seen whether Russia plans to follow through with these threats. If they do, this may lead to a rapid end to the Ukraine conflict, if not extreme consequences for global peace.