Russia's new military doctrine opens for first strike nuclear attacks in "local or regional wars"
The Russian newspaper Izvestia reports that Cremlin is working on a new military doctrine on first strike use of nuclear arms against “aggressors”. That must include Georgia according to President Medvedev’s statement after the war in Georgia in 2008: “The aggressor has been punished”.Patrushev: “Nuclear weapons could be used in case of a nuclear attack, but also in 'regional or even local wars.”
According to Izvestia, “Russia will insist on the right to pre-emptive nuclear strikes against aggressor countries in its new military doctrine”, the head of the country's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said.
A greater threat to Russia's neighboring countries
This new doctrine is contrary to US nuclear military policy, which do not allow for first strike attacks. This leads us once more to seriously wonder what’s going on in the Cremlin. Such an aggressive move means a further treat to Russia’s bordering countries and serves no civilized purpose. As we have seen the later period, US’ reset has had no impact on the hawks in Moscow when it comes to serious cooperation on for instance Iran. Judging from this doctrine, one could on the contrary be led to believe that Russia today poses a significant greater danger to civilization than Iran: The combination of Putins restoration of Stalin as "a great leader", Russia claiming a priveledged sphere of influence in the former Soviet space, and now the suggested doctrine of first strike use of nuclear arms against local/regional wars and "agressors" should really start to worry all governments in the modern world.
Who's the target?
Georgia certainly will have to seriously consider it self as a prime target for a nuclear attack from Russia. The latest Russian accusations of Georgia supporting and aiding Al Quaeda operations in Russia is a reminder of the fact that the war is not over. Russia uses all means available to portray Georgia as an aggressor, and thus threatens Georgia with first strike use of nuclear arms if neccessary. Judging by Russia’s willingness to use excessive force in the attack on Georgia in 2008, this represents a real threat to Georgia and also Ukraine, where the situation on the Crimean peninsula is gradually heating up. In fact the whole of North Caucasus might be targeted due to uprise and intensivated terrorist attacs in several regions.
Link to the doctrine (Curtesy of V.Konnander): http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html
posted by Eistein G. at 7:00 pm
4 Comments:
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 pre-emptive strike because the type of aggression that would warrant such a strike is not clearly defined.
Hello again, Oleg. I saw these analysis, and frankly I don't think Russia bothers much about what a document says or not says. I just thought this was a good opportunity to put it in perspectives towards the accusations of Georgia aiding terrorists, and that Russia might use the nukes in LOCAL/REGIONAL wars. Now it's an official statement, and not a diffuse document.
they are mad! I am so worried that before world wakes up, it could be to late for Georgia :(
As part of the next arms reduction treaty between superpowers, the United States has tentatively agreed to unprecedented Russian access to American nuclear missile sites. According to published accounts, Russian weapons inspectors will be given an open door to American nuclear sites in order to monitor the number of missiles and warheads. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is quite satisfied with the deal. Perhaps it is an error of omission, but there is no news of a similar concession from the Russian side. This is psychologically and strategically significant: first, because it presents us with a President and a Secretary of State who are mistaken in their assessment of Kremlin trustworthiness; second, because it shows weakness in the President; third, because the Russians are demonstrating a kind of superiority.
On 13 October Reuters reported that Russia had publicly reserved to itself “the right to undertake a pre-emptive strike if it feels its security is endangered....” This was recently announced by a senior Kremlin official. Meanwhile, the United States is publicly renouncing its right to undertake a preemptive nuclear strike in turn. If the United States sees someone else preparing a strike, no preemptive action will be taken. Washington is resolved to accept the strike, and heaven knows whether we have the will to retaliate.
Now let us imagine, if we can, the United States making an announcement that we are prepared to initiate a preemptive nuclear war. Imagine the outcry from the media, from the liberal pundits, and from Europe. Such would rate as a political bombshell, denounced at home and decried abroad as provocative. So we find, as with every issue along the Left versus Right divide, that a double standard exists. On the Russian side, provocative actions are acceptable. On the American side, they are deplorable. We must suspect that the Russians adopted their preemptive strike policy to reassure themselves, once again, that the Americans are guilty and timid creatures who are easily manipulated into concessions.
Under the present administration the policy is clear: The American side gives up one strategic advantage after another; and the Russians have come to expect these concessions. Logically, the Kremlin envisions a day when there is a final concession; a concession that cannot be revoked; a concession that is strategically decisive. Perhaps the arms reduction talks of today are approaching that point. Once the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal below 500 warheads – especially if those warheads are kept on submarines - a successful Russian preemptive attack becomes possible.
It is difficult for Europeans to grasp the psychology of Neo-Stalinist leaders in the former Soviet Union. The Left supposes that government is benevolent, that it can be controlled once it is given absolute control over the economy. They see the corruption of capitalism and are disgusted. They have yet, in their own country, to taste the corruption of absolute government power over human economic choice.
Post a Comment
<< Home