Tension Between Russia and the US

The recently elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, has not even stepped into the White House yet, and challenges to fulfilling his campaign promise of “ending wars worldwide” have already begun to emerge. Outgoing President Joe Biden has granted Ukraine permission to fire long-range American-made missiles into Russian territory. This decision, which involves allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles against targets within Russia, was met with a stern warning from Russia, which described it as an action warranting a “proportionate and resolute” response.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reacted swiftly by approving changes to the nation’s nuclear weapons policy, outlining new rules and conditions for their use. These amendments, initially proposed in September, were formally adopted on the 1,000th day of the war with Ukraine. According to Russia’s foreign ministry, such attacks on Russian soil would be interpreted as direct involvement of the U.S. and its allied states in the war against Russia. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that the updated nuclear doctrine was published “in a timely manner” and had been requested by Putin earlier in the year to align with the prevailing geopolitical situation.

A Kremlin-issued statement emphasized that if U.S.-supplied missiles are launched at Russia, Moscow would consider it an American attack rather than a Ukrainian one. It added that the Biden administration’s decision marked a “new level of Washington’s involvement in this conflict,” underscoring that the outgoing administration was “pouring fuel on the fire” and deliberately escalating existing tensions.

Responding to Kremlin accusations of exacerbating the Ukraine-Russia war, U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer stated that Washington was monitoring Russia’s tactics, including the involvement of North Korean forces, and made it clear that the U.S. would respond accordingly. He reiterated President Biden’s commitment to supporting Ukraine militarily during his remaining term, with the aim of strengthening Ukraine’s position in any potential peace negotiations.

Finer further remarked that the conflict originated from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and that the involvement of North Korean forces and intensified airstrikes across the country had exacerbated the crisis. He questioned Russia’s claims by asking, “Who is fueling the fire here?” and expressed doubt that the Ukrainian people were to blame.

For months, Ukraine has sought U.S. approval to use these missiles for strikes within Russian territory. The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) is a ground-to-ground ballistic missile with a range of up to 300 kilometers, making it particularly valuable for Ukraine. It can be launched via the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) or the highly mobile M142 HIMARS platform, offering both stationary and mobile deployment options.

Fuelled by solid rocket propellant, these missiles are difficult to intercept due to their high speed. Navigation is pre-programmed before launch, using inertial and satellite guidance systems to ensure precision within 10 meters of the target. They can be equipped with two types of warheads: one capable of dispersing submunitions to neutralize enemy air defenses, and another with a 225-kilogram unitary warhead designed for destroying large installations or infrastructure. First deployed during the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. is currently working to extend their range to 500 kilometers.

While it remains unclear whether Ukraine will receive these missiles, they would enable targeted strikes against Russian military bases, infrastructure, and supply depots. Initial use might focus on areas like Kursk, where Ukrainian forces are currently positioned across a 1,000-square-kilometer region.

Anticipating such attacks, Russia has strengthened its defense, including relocating fighter aircraft and other military assets within its borders. However, logistical challenges may slow its ability to send additional reinforcements. A Western diplomat described the missile provision as symbolic, noting it might increase Russia’s wartime costs but was unlikely to be decisive in altering the conflict’s trajectory.

Ground Realities Suggest Imminent Russian Action in Kursk

The ground realities indicate that Russia might launch a major offensive any day to expel Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region of Russia. Ukraine may use US-supplied ATACMS missiles to defend against such an attack, targeting critical Russian positions, including military bases, infrastructure, and ammunition depots. These weapons could provide Ukraine with an advantage at a time when Russian forces are consolidating their presence in the eastern parts of the country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had been lobbying for months for the US to lift restrictions on the use of long-range missiles, enabling Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin had repeatedly warned Western nations against such actions, stating in September this year that Russia would view it as direct NATO involvement in the conflict. Putin explicitly cautioned that it would mean NATO, the US, and European countries were “fighting against Russia.”

The ATACMS missiles, produced by the US-based company Lockheed Martin, have a range of up to 300 kilometres, making them difficult to intercept due to their speed. The US has provided these weapons to Ukraine as part of its support packages, and Ukraine has previously used them in Crimea. However, Washington had never permitted Kyiv to use these missiles against targets inside Russia.

Ukraine has argued that withholding permission for such use is akin to “tying one hand behind its back in a fight and asking it to continue.” President Zelensky has not yet confirmed the US decision, but on Sunday, he remarked that “words cannot launch attacks… missiles will make their presence known.”

The US policy shift reportedly occurred after North Korean troops entered the Kursk region to support Russian forces. Ukraine has controlled parts of Kursk since August, and reports suggest Kyiv might use these long-range missiles to counter Russian advances in the area.

What Is Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine, and What Has Changed?

The Kremlin first established its nuclear doctrine under President Vladimir Putin in 2020, and the latest version was approved only days ago. This updated doctrine outlines the conditions under which Russia may use its nuclear weapons. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, President Putin and other Kremlin officials have frequently issued warnings about Russia’s nuclear capabilities to Eastern powers. However, Kyiv’s allies have continued supplying Ukraine with billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry, some of which has reportedly been used on Russian soil.

The revised document describes Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a “deterrent.” It emphasises that their use would be a “last resort and forced measure.” The doctrine stresses that Russia makes every effort to “reduce the risk of nuclear weapon use and prevent escalations in interstate relations that could lead to military conflicts, including nuclear ones.”

The strategy is framed as a means to “preserve the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and deter potential aggressors from initiating hostilities. One of its objectives is to “halt escalating military conflicts under terms acceptable to Russia.”

The doctrine also aims to ensure that any adversary contemplating aggression against Russia or its allies understands the severe consequences of such actions. While the document does not specify the exact circumstances under which nuclear weapons would be used, it leaves room for interpretation, ensuring adversaries remain uncertain about Russia’s next move.

Notably, the updated doctrine highlights that President Putin reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even in conventional conflicts. The revisions had been in the works for months, and it is no coincidence that the announcement on Tuesday followed the US decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia.

The recent changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine indicate that if a non-nuclear state attacks Russia with the backing of a nuclear power, it will be considered a joint attack on Russia. Under these amendments, a significant assault on Russia using conventional missiles, drones, or aircraft could now meet the criteria for a nuclear response. For instance, if an attack were to occur on Belarus or a severe threat emerged to Russia’s sovereignty, a nuclear reaction could be triggered. Following these changes, aggression against Russia by a nation that is part of an alliance will now be viewed by Moscow as aggression from the entire bloc. Consequently, the number of countries, alliances, and military threats that fall under the scope of a potential nuclear response has increased.

President Putin has previously issued threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which Ukraine has criticized as “nuclear blackmail” and described as an attempt by Russia to deter Ukraine’s allies from providing additional support. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated, “We firmly believe that nuclear war must be avoided at all costs.” During a press conference at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Lavrov highlighted that Russia, along with other members of the group, had signed a declaration emphasizing the desire for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Regarding the amendments to the nuclear doctrine, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov urged other nations to study these changes closely, describing the document as a critical and significant text requiring careful analysis.

Key Western news agencies have confirmed Ukraine’s use of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) against Russia. Just one day after the U.S. allowed Ukraine to use long-range American-made missiles to strike within Russia, Ukraine launched these weapons for the first time on Russian soil. Early Tuesday morning, the Bryansk region, near the northern border with Ukraine, was targeted.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense confirmed the attack, reporting that at 3:25 a.m. local time, Ukraine launched multiple missile strikes. Five missiles were intercepted, while one caused damage, with fragments igniting a fire at a Russian military installation in the area. The fire was promptly extinguished, and no casualties were reported. Earlier, Ukrainian forces had confirmed a separate attack near the town of Karachev, approximately 100 kilometers from the border, where 12 explosions were reported at an ammunition depot.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Washington of escalating the conflict, stating, “Last night in Bryansk, American missiles were repeatedly used, which clearly signals their intent to increase tensions.” Lavrov reiterated that without U.S. involvement, the use of such high-tech missiles would be impossible, implying American military experts are actively guiding their deployment. Speaking at the G20 summit in Rio, he asserted, “We will view this as a new face of the Western war against Russia and respond accordingly.”

Ukraine has already been using these missiles for over a year in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories. Capable of targeting objectives up to 300 kilometers away, these missiles are challenging to intercept. With their extended range, Kyiv can now strike deeper within Russia, including areas around Kursk, where Ukrainian forces control over 1,000 square kilometers. Both Ukrainian and U.S. officials anticipate retaliatory action from Russia in the region.

The pressing question is: how will outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s actions in this volatile region impact President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to end wars? Will Trump fulfill his promise, or will he succumb to the influence of the military-industrial complex, choosing pragmatism over principle? If the latter, the world might dismiss his pledge as mere rhetoric and wait for the next election cycle.