Russia’s nuclear doctrine previously stated that in the event of a nuclear or conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state, nuclear retaliation will be enforced. However, military analysts have encouraged further lowering of the threshold for usage of nuclear weapons to send a warning to Western countries. The changing of the doctrine has been confirmed and is in its final stages, according to Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. These changes come in the wake of the recent incursion on Russia’s southern border, which has been the first major offensive move Ukraine has conducted thus far. The unprecedented attack has left Russia shaken and further escalated tensions in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war. Russia has accused Western countries of using Ukraine as a proxy to wage war. The West has repeatedly denied this, claiming to be “helping Ukraine defend itself against a colonial-style war of aggression by Russia,” according to Reuters. 

The change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine seems to further advance the ominous prospect of nuclear war. However, the United States (U.S.) and its allies have not allowed this to deter them from providing military support to Ukraine by supplying missiles, fighter jets, and tanks. While it is confirmed that the doctrine is being changed, the likelihood of actual nuclear retaliation seems low, as many Russian threats have proven to be empty throughout the duration of the war. This response, while possessing more serious potential consequences, is one in a long line of bluffs. Russia has accused the U.S. of being a main party in stoking the tensions of the war, as one of Ukraine’s most active supporters. 

The rhetoric that has been used throughout the conflict has often involved language pitting the “West” against the “East.” Oftentimes reports have reflected an attitude that harkens back to the era of the Cold War in which the Soviet Bloc took on the role of the indisputable enemy of the U.S., as well as nondemocratic states such as China and Russia. As international tensions grow, the formation of a second postmodern Soviet Bloc is growing more and more tangible. Russia’s released statements directed towards the U.S. that accuse it of aggression are a signifier of this renewed tension between democratic and nondemocratic countries. 

Russia’s escalated aggression in response to Ukraine’s incursion is expected as tensions in the war increase. In an ongoing conflict, there is very little room for non-aggressive responses, because every move will be perceived as a threat. The origin of this war is inherently conflictual, and even more so than the typical conflicts of a war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is based on the belief that Ukraine is a part of Russian territory. The basis for this war is one that encourages nationalistic attitudes, which makes the situation incredibly volatile. This is shown in the events that led up to the war: simply put, Russia perceived the efforts to include Ukraine in N.A.T.O. as a threat to their security, which triggered their invasion. Historically, N.A.T.O. has been composed of democratic states, often having strong ties and alliances with the United States. Again, the return to a bilateral global dynamic in which democratic states and nondemocratic states are in opposition is made apparent in this conflict. Overall, the reason for the war and escalating aggression between the two parties is due to the incendiary nature of their nationalistic motivations and due to a broader emerging world order. Democratic and nondemocratic states each have sufficient motivation to increase investment in this conflict because they are defending their fundamental convictions. 

The result is a standoff that has no clear solution and no clear pathway to peaceful negotiation. Because the unspoken ideological stakes of this war are so high, there is little potential for de-escalation. Both Ukraine and Russia have garnered the support of their allies, and every move the U.S. and other Western states make to support Ukraine will be perceived as a threat to Russia’s security. Every move that each state makes to protect its survival will be perceived as a threat to the opposing side. There is very little concrete action that can be taken to achieve a peaceful end to the war.

What can solve this issue are broader, systemic changes in diplomacy such as increasing transparency and intercommunication. The more that states communicate their intentions and their motivations, the easier it will be to negotiate. The information deficit between countries in foreign relations is a huge problem that is caused on both an individual, person-to-person level, as well as on a broader interstate level which has recently been exacerbated by advancing technology and the disinformation that inevitably accompanies it. However, technology can also be a tool that solves the issue. Developing more advanced and efficient communications technology, as well as developing more standards and systems for identifying disinformation, can decrease instances of miscommunication between states. Military drills often cite objectives as increasing “interoperability.” Increasing interoperability can also be applied to diplomacy and interstate communication. As the world continues to learn how to navigate and regulate the internet, cybersecurity has become increasingly important. Developing more advanced cybersecurity to detect misinformation, hacking efforts, and disinformation cannot only help to strengthen security in states, but also keep the public more well-informed. A more secure cyberspace means more accurate information, a more well-informed and less polarized public, and therefore less nationalistic attitudes that can add fuel to conflicts.

Measures can also be taken to increase opportunities for communication. Allies can require diplomatic meetings before deploying military equipment or any kind of military support to either of the opposing sides. Opening opportunities for communication would help in closing the information gap between states. 

The enforcement of these systems and regulations is difficult to employ in all states involved in a conflict because distrust is rooted so deeply in international relations. The inevitable fact that all states are motivated on a fundamental level to do what is in their own best interest, as well as continuous preconceived and historical biases against rivaling nations, will also continue to fuel conflicts. However, through incremental efforts and a commitment to prioritizing global peace, this can change.