Russia’s nuclear strategy took center stage once again in late September, following both a critical missile test failure and an unsettling announcement from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Just five days before Putin declared a shift in Russia’s nuclear doctrine, a catastrophic accident occurred at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, where Russia’s newest intercontinental ballistic missile, the Sarmat, suffered a major malfunction.
The missile, which Putin has repeatedly touted as one of Russia’s most formidable next-generation weapons, erupted in a massive explosion on September 20. Satellite images revealed scorched earth, destroyed structures, and felled trees surrounding the silo. Despite this mishap, Putin made no mention of the failed test in his high-profile address to the Russian Security Council on September 25. Instead, his message focused on updating the world — particularly NATO and the United States — on Russia’s nuclear posture. The timing of these developments has left arms control experts and global policymakers speculating about the true intent behind Putin’s words and what Russia’s nuclear future might hold.
Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine Update: A Message to the West
In his televised address, Putin emphasized a significant change to Russia’s nuclear policy. “The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear-weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear-weapon state, should be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” he stated.
While his remarks did not explicitly outline sweeping changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, they carried ominous undertones. Putin has long threatened the potential use of nuclear weapons, especially since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. His updated policy suggests a broader interpretation of what might justify a nuclear response, including conventional attacks by non-nuclear states, such as Ukraine, if backed by nuclear powers like the United States.
For months, Russia has wielded nuclear threats as a tool of strategic deterrence, aiming to sway Western powers from escalating their military support for Ukraine. The latest update seems designed to reinforce that message, warning that any further involvement in Ukraine, especially the provision of long-range weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory, could trigger severe consequences.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed as much when he told reporters the next day that Putin’s comments were “a specific signal… to warn countries of the consequences if they participate in an attack on our country by various means, not necessarily nuclear.”
A New Threshold for Nuclear Use?
Putin’s update to the nuclear doctrine raises questions about whether Russia is lowering the threshold for nuclear use. Russia’s official policy, last revised in 2020, allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or if the existence of the Russian state is threatened. However, some analysts have speculated that this revision may broaden the scope of circumstances under which Moscow could justify the deployment of its nuclear arsenal.
Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian diplomat and arms-control negotiator now with the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, emphasized that while Putin’s remarks echoed established policies, they also offered a more specific warning to NATO. “He went much more specific on the existing policy, but he added new details, tailored to the current situation,” Sokov explained.
Sokov pointed to the ongoing debate about whether NATO and the West should supply Ukraine with long-range weapons that could strike targets deep inside Russia. If such weapons were deployed in attacks on Russian soil, Moscow might now interpret that as crossing a line outlined in its updated doctrine.
“The doctrine represents a signal, a warning to NATO, as NATO continues to contemplate whether Western weapons should be used for long-range strikes,” Sokov said.
The Sarmat Mishap: A Troubling Symbol of Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal?
Amid these developments, the failed Sarmat test casts a shadow over Putin’s nuclear ambitions. The Sarmat ICBM, designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads and evade Western defense systems, is a centerpiece of Russia’s modernization efforts. But the missile has experienced repeated technical issues, with the September 20 accident marking its fourth major failure.
The incident occurred at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, one of Russia’s most critical missile testing sites, where the Sarmat was undergoing routine trials. The explosion’s cause remains unclear, but satellite imagery revealed significant damage to surrounding infrastructure, raising concerns about the reliability of Russia’s missile program.
Western military analysts have long been skeptical of Russia’s claims regarding the Sarmat, as well as other advanced weapon systems such as hypersonic missiles and nuclear-powered cruise missiles. While these weapons are intended to showcase Russian military might, repeated test failures suggest that Moscow may be overstating their operational readiness.
Russia’s Expansive Arsenal: The Sword of Damocles
Russia’s nuclear arsenal, the largest in the world, remains at the core of its deterrent strategy. This includes both strategic weapons like long-range missiles, capable of reaching the United States and Europe, and tactical weapons such as nuclear-tipped artillery shells, which could be used in more localized conflicts, including in Ukraine.
Although Putin’s recent statements did not directly reference tactical nuclear weapons, the ongoing war in Ukraine has heightened concerns that Russia could resort to using such arms, particularly if its conventional forces continue to falter. In the months following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, intelligence assessments from the United States and its allies have indicated that the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine remains a serious threat.
CIA Director William Burns confirmed that the threat was considered grave enough in the early days of the war for him to warn his Russian counterpart against it. “Russian threats of the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine were serious enough,” Burns said in an interview, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Ukraine’s counteroffensive efforts, including attacks on Russian early-warning radar systems and incursions into Russian territory like the August raid on the Kursk region, have led to growing ambiguity about what Moscow views as crossing a nuclear red line. Kyiv’s stated goal of recapturing all land occupied by Russia, including Crimea, puts further pressure on Russia’s military and political establishment.
NATO’s Calculations and the Western Response
Putin’s updated nuclear doctrine is likely to factor heavily into Western strategic calculations, especially as the United States and NATO grapple with the question of whether to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory.
For NATO planners, Putin’s new policy may further complicate decisions on how best to support Ukraine without provoking an overreaction from Moscow. The timing of Putin’s speech, just a day before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House to request long-range weapons, underscores the Kremlin’s intent to deter the West from such actions.
However, arms control experts like Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, cautioned against overreacting to Putin’s remarks. “For now, everything remains just at the level of statements,” Podvig said, “and we also haven’t seen any real steps toward escalation.”
Xiaodon Liang, a senior policy analyst for the Arms Control Association, echoed this view, noting that while Putin’s rhetoric may signal a lower threshold for nuclear use, it does not necessarily reflect an imminent shift in Russia’s overall strategy. “There is definitely more specificity,” Liang said, “but we should be thinking of this kind of separate from the more casual nuclear threats that Russia has been making.”
Ultimately, Putin’s speech, and its implications for Russia’s nuclear policy, appear aimed as much at shaping the global political landscape as at any immediate military objectives. Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former British Defense Ministry adviser, argued that Putin’s remarks were designed in part to influence public opinion, especially in the United States, ahead of the U.S. presidential elections.
“He understands how the issue of nuclear weapons plays out in the domestic debate in the United States,” Coffey said. “He’s a master at this propaganda and information warfare.”
Putin’s comments, while falling short of a formal doctrine change, nonetheless serve as a chilling reminder that Russia’s nuclear strategy is fluid and that its threshold for using these weapons may be lower than many in the West would hope. As arms control experts continue to assess the potential implications, one thing is clear: the world remains on edge, watching Russia’s nuclear moves with growing apprehension.
