Naval History Forums

Boston Globe
October 15, 2009

Russia Reserves Right To Conduct Preemptive Nuclear Strike

Say US, NATO pose threat of aggression

By David Nowak, Associated Press

MOSCOW - A top Russian security official says Moscow reserves the right to conduct preemptive nuclear strikes to safeguard the country against aggression on both a large and a local scale, according to a newspaper interview published yesterday.

Presidential Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev also singled out the United States and NATO, saying Moscow’s Cold War foes still pose potential threats to Russia despite what he called a global trend toward local conflicts.

The interview appeared in the daily Izvestia during a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as US and Russian negotiators try to hammer out a nuclear arms reduction treaty by December. It also came amid grumbling in Moscow over US moves to modify plans for a missile shield near Russia’s borders rather than ditch the idea outright.

Patrushev said a sweeping document on military policy including a passage on preventative nuclear force will be handed to President Dmitry Medvedev by the end of the year, according to Izvestia.

Officials are examining “a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent,’’ Patrushev was quoted as saying. “In situations critical to national security, options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded.’’

The proposed doctrine would allow for the use of nuclear weapons “to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war,’’ Patrushev was quoted as saying. He said a government analysis of the threat of conflict in the world showed “a shift from large-scale conflicts to local wars and armed conflicts.’’

“However, earlier military dangers and threats for our country have not lost significance,’’ he was quoted as saying. “Activity on receiving new members into NATO is not ceasing. The military activity of the bloc is being stepped up. US strategic forces are conducting intensive training on using strategic nuclear weapons.’’

Russian military analysts said the hawkish former domestic intelligence chief’s remarks were mostly muscle-flexing for show, because what he revealed about the proposed new doctrine suggests it differs little from the current one.

One independent analyst, Alexander Golts, said current policy already allows for a nuclear strike to repel an aggression of any sort.

Another, Pavel Felgenhauer, said that effectively allows for a preemptive strike because the type of aggression that would warrant such a strike is not clearly defined.

Russia’s NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, argued the proposed doctrine does not contradict arms reduction efforts.

Still, Patrushev’s focus on local conflicts could rattle Georgia, the small neighbor that Russia routed in a five-day conventional war with Russia last year.

Wouldn't you too?

I have always had the perception that the russians are, in these regard, more practical than the US (don´t get me wrong, please!). The US has always regarded nuclear weapons more as a political tool than a practical military weapon. I think that the ruskies regarded it just as a much bigger bomb that could be used as a tactical weapon if required. The only reason they have not yet do it is because of the US paranoia on it and the likely consequences.

But we must do not judge if they have the right or not to use it. If it was me then it is better "use them than lose them".

Best regards,

In other words the Russians regarded it as a real weapon, NATO as a symbolic tool......

If the Falklands, say, were Russian, and Galtieri invaded - would there be a nuclear response?

I think I´m not mistaken when I say this: if the 1991 Gulf War you replace the iraqui camel drivers for russians using their own equipment maybe the US and Great Britain (plus some other "allies") would have won, eventually, but it would have taken much longer and the casualties would have been exponencially greater. At the end the ruskies would likely settle the issue with tactical nuclear strikes that the allies would not have answered for fear of an escalation.

You are mistaken, Karl. We would have initiated a first strike against the Russian Homeland, just as we would have done if they had used nukes in Cuba.

The US will not sacrificy New York or Phoenix for some damn piece of sand. Is too high a risk. The ruskies had less to lose.

The Russians would be softened up by massive airstrikes, as the Iraqi forces were. Yes, there would be higher losses, but more effort against the AAA, by both airpower and commando strikes on the ground.
The experience of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan demonstrates such a strategy would have worked - if allocated sufficient time.

Karl Heidenreich wrote:The US will not sacrificy New York or Phoenix for some damn piece of sand. Is too high a risk. The ruskies had less to lose.

Agreed. You fight Desert Storm, limited operation that that was. USSR itself wouldn't be touched.

After all we are talking George H W Bush and John Major, not Douglas McArthur or George Patton or Curtis LeMay.