Hours after Putin’s announcement, Ukraine carried out its first attack with US long-range missiles against Russia. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, kyiv fired six missiles ATACMSof which five were intercepted by the S-400 and Pantsir anti-aircraft batteries and one hit a military installation in the Bryansk border region.
LOOK: These are the US long-range ATACMS missiles that Ukraine can now use against Russia
“As a result, a fire broke out that was operationally extinguished. There are no deaths or injuries”, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.
The ATACMS missiles delivered by the United States to Ukraine have a range of 300 kilometers. (Public Domain).
At this point, it should be noted that until now USA has not officially confirmed the authorization to Ukraine. It was American media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post that reported the news. These same newspapers had indicated that Washington will only allow the use of ATACMS against military targets in the border region of Kurskwhere Russian forces supported by North Koreans try to recover territory conquered by the Ukrainians since August.
The range of ATACMS missiles. (EFE).
After the Ukrainian attack, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrovpromised a response consistent with the firing of missiles ATACMS and said that The action opens a “new phase” of the war started in February 2022.
“If there is a launch of long-range missiles from Ukraine towards Russian territory, it means that these are operated by United States military experts. “We consider this to be a new phase of the West’s war against Russia and we will react accordingly,” Lavrov declared to the press in Rio de Janeiro, after the G20 summit.
The chancellor insisted that it is not possible to use these missiles “without the help of experts and instructors from the United States” who provide “satellite data, programming and targeting.”
Furthermore, he considered that the use of missiles ATACMS against Russian territory is “a sign” that Ukraine and the West “want escalation.”
A Ukrainian serviceman from the 24th Mechanized Brigade fires a 152mm 2s5 self-propelled howitzer towards Russian positions at an undisclosed location near Chasiv Yar, Donetsk region, on November 18, 2024. (AFP).
/
Ukraine had long requested authorization to use long-range weapons provided by the West to attack military bases from which Russia launches its bombings and counteract the advance of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.
The new nuclear doctrine
The new nuclear doctrine signed by Putin expands the possibility of Russia to use atomic weapons in the event of a “massive” attack by a non-nuclear country, but supported by a nuclear power, clearly allusion to Ukraine and the United States.
The document details the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons and notes that They could be used in the event of a massive air attack involving ballistic and cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and other flying vehicles.
So, Russia has significantly expanded the grounds for the possible use of nuclear weapons compared to the previous version of the document, which stated that the country could resort to its atomic arsenal in the event of a ballistic missile attack.
According to the AP agency, when Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was asked on Tuesday whether a Ukrainian attack with long-range US missiles could potentially trigger a nuclear responsehe responded affirmatively.
The document also points out that the aggression against Russia by a member of a military bloc or coalition will be seen as “an aggression by the entire bloc”, a clear reference to the NATO.
Previously, Putin had warned the United States and its allies of the NATO than allow Ukraine use long-range weapons supplied by the West to attack Russian territory would mean that Russia and NATO are at war.
A Russian Yars RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile system and other military vehicles move through Red Square during a military parade. (ALEXANDER NEMENOV / AFP).
Are we approaching an all-out war after Russia’s new nuclear doctrine? Roberto Heimovitsa specialist in international affairs, told The Commerce that It could not be assured that we are facing an imminent generalized conflict.
“Three aspects would have to be analyzed. First of all, responding to a conventional attack means that neither chemical, nor biological, nor nuclear weapons are used, that is not so new. In the 50s and 60s, the Soviet Union had a very large conventional superiority over NATO in Europe, with many more tanks, more divisions, more artillery, etc. And also the Soviet army was much better than the Russian one is now. And so NATO adopted an ambiguous policy, not so explicit, but it did imply that if a conventional attack managed to penetrate its lines, such as taking over part of West Germany for example, it would respond with nuclear weapons.although the Soviet Union did not use them first. So, Putin is not the first to say it”Heimovits said.
“In second place, Putin’s statement, this supposed change in nuclear doctrine, is not very credible and is also dangerous. It is not very credible because Putin has already threatened to use nuclear weapons when the United States gave him the system HIMARS to Ukraine. He threatened to use nuclear weapons when the United States decided to give him the tank Abrams M1 and also when he gave them the F-16 aircraft. So all the time Putin is threatening this. Is dangerous because these constant nuclear threats can have a destabilizing effect. Nuclear weapons are supposed to be a last resort.”Heimovits said.
“And thirdly, It is hardly credible that Putin plans to use his nuclear weapons now in response to the Ukrainian attackswith this American permission, because the Russian president is waiting for donald trump come to power on January 20 in the United States and pressure Ukraine to accept a deal advantageous to Russia. So even if I wanted to use them, it is really unlikely that I will use it in these months”he remarked.
Heimovits also considered that this change in Russian doctrine could seek to scare or dissuade the United States and its allies from continuing to provide aid to Ukraine.
“Just as it seems to be important for Russia to conquer Ukraine, for NATO it is also very important that Ukraine remains an independent country, because its conquest would greatly strengthen Russia and give it appetite for new war adventures. So it will hardly deter the United States”held.
Heimovits indicated that Russia is already escalating the conflict with the entry of some 10,000 North Korean troops into the war.
“It is strange and could be a sign of weakness of Putin’s Russia, why does a country of 145 million people need to bring in foreign soldiers to help fight its wars?”asked.
The nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States
World spending on nuclear weapons. (AFP).
Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads in the world, some 5,580according to the Stockholm International Peace Studies Institute (SIPRI).
Of them, about 1,200 are retired but practically intact and about 4,380 are stored for operational forces.
Of the stored warheads, 1,710 strategic warheads are deployed: about 870 warheads on land-based ballistic missiles, about 640 on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and 200 on heavy bomber bases.
For its part, The United States has 5,244 nuclear warheads, of which 1,670 are deployed, 1,938 undeployed and 1,536 dismantled.
With such weapons, both Russia and the United States could destroy the world several times over.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union peaked at about 40,000 nuclear warheads, while the American peak was about 30,000.
