Why is it too early for Putin to press the red button?

The possibility for Russia to use tactical and even strategic nuclear weapons amid the crisis in Ukraine and the ensuing consequences of such a decision have been discussed throughout the whole year of Russia's special military operation in Ukraine.

It stands the reason that such a development is not going to bring any benefits to any of the parties.

Analysts both in Russia and the United States believe that there are almost no advantages from the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, minuses obviously outnumber pluses here.

The removal of the "nuclear threshold" is inevitable to say the least. It will lead to the inevitable proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. Other countries may also conclude that they can use nuclear weapons too: "if they can do it, why can't we?"

Specialists of the National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations named after E. M. Primakov of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO RAS) noted in their report that there were no "worthy" targets for nuclear strikes in Ukraine. They concluded that it was too early for Putin to push the red button. Noteworthy, Russia reserves the right to resort to nuclear weapons only in the event of a threat to the existence of the state.

With all the will in the world, Ukraine will not be able to cause such global harm to the Russian Federation, not even with NATO's help. Needless to say that NATO is not interested in being directly involved in the conflict. The alliance is frankly determined to gain as much profit as possible from the Ukrainian conflict, wage war "to the last Ukrainian" and get away with it nicely.

It goes without saying that Western media tried to speculate on the subject as much as possible. This is what irresponsible non-professionals would normally do. At the same time, one can understand them as they try to discredit the Russian Federation, since all accusations of "playing the nuclear game" are unfounded.

The Russian nuclear doctrine is based on the concept of a retaliatory strike. In other words, Russia will use nuclear weapons should any state use weapons of mass destruction (any) or strike a powerful non-nuclear blow that could either threaten Russian nuclear forces or jeopardise the existence of the country.

Russia will never initiate a nuclear catastrophe.

Tellingly, it is the analysis of possible nuclear scenarios of major local conflicts — the US Vietnam campaign of 1964-1973, the 1991 Gulf War and a number of others — that made such conclusions feasible.

A large-scale use of nuclear weapons does not meet the target framework of a local conflict, especially against a non-nuclear state. A one-time use of nuclear weapons creates a multitude of problems for the civilian population and the restoration of economic activity not only in the affected area, but also in adjacent territories.

Military experts saw a way out in developing the creation and production of high-precision long-range weapons in non-nuclear equipment.

Given the constant involvement of the West and Kyiv's refusal to negotiate, there is a danger for the conflict to escalate suddenly and uncontrollably. The United States and its allies are openly using this conflict to wear Russia out military and economically. This may in turn lead to dire consequences.

"If NATO still turns out to be a party to the confrontation, it will be impossible to completely exclude the use of nuclear weapons," experts summarise in the report.

We would like to add here that in his article "Points of no return", Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev stated:

"If the question of Russia's existence arises seriously, it will not be resolved on the Ukrainian front — it will be resolved along with the question of the further existence of the entire human civilisation."