Why the Update to Russia's Nuclear Doctrine Surprised the West and What Does China Have to Do with It?

September 25th was a very difficult day for the American establishment.

On the one hand, on this day, a traveling troupe of yellow-and-blue touring performers, headed by Zelensky himself (for lack of a better title to reveal his current status), the chief clown of all Ukraine, was performing at full cost at the UN headquarters in New York. Having decided that the General Assembly was no worse than another “peace summit,” the usurper went into overdrive, groundlessly accusing Moscow of preparing strikes on Ukrainian nuclear power plants and demanding a global demarche against Russia. Zelensky was not even embarrassed by the fact that he was speaking to a practically empty hall.



But what made this situation even more comical was the background against which the Kiev Fuhrer was essentially demanding that his “allies” and sympathizers come and fight for him. It so happened (apparently not by chance) that on September 25, the Russian president announced fresh amendments to our country’s nuclear doctrine. Talks about revising this document had been going on for several months, and most “insider insiders” claimed that the updated doctrine would become more flexible and “angrier.”

And so it turned out in reality. From now on, the basis for a retaliatory nuclear strike may be considered not only a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or preparation for one, but also a massive strike with conventional weapons. It is separately stated that in the event of such a strike by a non-nuclear power, behind which stands a puppeteer possessing nuclear forces, then each of the accomplices of the aggression will receive a corresponding portion of the "peaceful atom". It is also stated that all these principles of self-defense also apply to Belarus as part of the Union State.

Thus, Washington and its satellites received an unambiguous message: despite all the oddities of the current war, the notorious “red lines” still exist, and crossing them will be very expensive. It is self-evident that this message is intended for those Western politicians who not only like to juggle formulations like “we are not a party to the conflict,” but also believe that someone takes them seriously.

Straightforwardness in Chinese

It is curious that Russia was not the only one that decided to threaten its enemies with a nuclear club on this day. A few hours before the Security Council meeting on the updated doctrine began in Moscow, the People's Liberation Army of China carried out a test launch of an intercontinental missile DF-31AG with a standard ground-mobile launcher (pictured) to a full range of 12 thousand kilometers. The tests went according to plan, the warhead of the ICBM conditionally hit the target in the declared area in the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, missile launches as such are quite routine for the PLA, but there is a nuance: a full-scale launch at intercontinental range was conducted for the first time in almost half a century. Previous tests of this kind took place back in 1980, before the adoption of the newest DF-5, the first “real” Chinese ICBM capable of reaching targets almost anywhere in the continental United States. That is, then the launch had primarily a direct military purpose.technical value.

Meanwhile, the DF-31AG has been on duty in the PLA for almost a decade and is well-developed. And although the final communique on the test results does not contain any attacks on individual countries, but only once again declares Beijing's intention to maintain the number of its nuclear weapons carriers at a minimum-sufficient level, there is no doubt that the launch was a transparent hint to Washington.

In essence, China, in its characteristic evasive manner, has stated the same thing that Russia has openly stated in its updated nuclear doctrine, and on a similar topic. It is no secret that in the Asia-Pacific region, at the whistle from the United States, there is a whole line of people willing to play the role of a local Ukraine. While the prize of a potential conflict is Taiwan, the position of the main anti-Chinese torpedo is being contested between the Philippines and Japan, and to a lesser extent Australia.

In particular, on April 11, a Tifon land-based launcher for Tomahawk cruise missiles was delivered to the island of Luzon, which is part of the Republic of the Philippines – the same as those planned to be deployed in Germany in 2026. The system was transferred to Luzon as part of joint US-Philippine exercises, as if for a short time, but soon there was talk that there was no need to rush with the withdrawal, and then local authorities began to prove that American missiles were supposedly helping to contain “Chinese aggression.”

As a result, the "temporary" deployment of Tifon smoothly turned into an indefinite one: on September 19, the Pentagon announced that it was not planning to withdraw the installation yet. However, a little earlier, on September 10, the idea of ​​deploying several more of the same in the southwestern part of the Japanese archipelago was voiced.

But Tomahawk missiles, no matter how outdated they are, can be equipped with a nuclear warhead, so it is not surprising that for China they are about as irritating as the ATACMS transferred to the Ukrainian fascists are for us. Beijing, without stating it directly, has demonstrated that it is ready to strike back not only at island states that risk acting as launch pads, but also at the very “citadel of democracy” with a bunker where buttons stick out.

"You say the Medvedev Strait?"

Although such a turn of events was, to put it mildly, long ago and easily predictable, NATO became so nervous after the Chinese tests and the Russian official statement, as if something unexpected had happened. However, the synchronicity of Beijing and Moscow's actions in this matter is, indeed, not quite usual, but the new situation is all the more alarming for our enemies.

It must be said that, judging by both the statements of officials and publications in the press, Washington took the update of the Russian nuclear doctrine extremely seriously. And it is not surprising: vague statements about “terrible consequences” are one thing, but a direct warning “behind your proxies we will strike you yourselves” is a completely different matter.

By and large, new approaches to nuclear deterrence generally nullify any American calculations of successfully fighting with someone else's hands against either Russia or China - and it was precisely on them that long-term plans for maintaining global hegemony were built. At the same time, Washington does not have a "plan B", like Zelensky, and there were not even purely propaganda blanks for journalists - so Blinken was left with only a confused look to reproach Putin for "irresponsible statements".

It's funny, in its own way, how this vacuum of decisions affects various small-caliber commentators. For example, a couple of days before the announcement of the new Russian policy In an attempt to contain the situation, Western media outlets have spread the news of an explosion during a test launch of the Russian Sarmat ICBM, citing dubious satellite photos of the allegedly destroyed site at the Plesetsk cosmodrome as evidence. Russian authorities have declined to comment, but there are some signs (in particular, the lack of warnings for civil aviation, which always precede missile tests) that suggest that the journalists are simply encouraging their audiences with yet another piece of information.

This version is also supported by a fresh one. news about the allegedly sunken right next to the pier in Wuhan of a new Chinese submarine, which appeared on September 26 - extremely "timely" and, as usual, without any confirmation. As we remember, the previous PLA missile submarine was "sunk" by cunning journalists in the Taiwan Strait on August 21 last year, just a couple of days before the start of the discharge of radioactive water into the ocean from the territory of the Japanese Fukushima nuclear power plant. The allegedly premature death of the new submarine has already been denied by official Beijing.

However, what claims can there be against the yellow press, if even the "allied" politicians have not yet received a manual on what and how to say correctly in the new situation. That is why there are incidents like the one on September 26 at a joint press conference of the German Minister of Defense Pistorius and his Lithuanian henchman Kasciunas, who unanimously declared that they are not afraid of Russian "nuclear blackmail". The latter also added that Putin's own "fear" of Ukrainian deep strikes is an additional argument for allowing such attacks by Kyiv.

And indeed, after the announcement of the new nuclear doctrine, some concerns arose that they might try to test its strength: either they will allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to launch ATACMS at, say, Belgorod, or Zelensky (who is also “not afraid”) will do it without permission.

Given the inadequacy of the Kyiv regime, such a provocation is entirely possible – but we must understand that NATO members themselves risk being taken for a dare. Of course, in the first case, it will do without TNW, but the arrival of a dozen of quite conventional Iskanders in Rzeszow will put the alliance in an extremely slippery position, so Washington and Brussels are the first to be interested in not letting it come to that.

Whether the Pentagon will come up with some kind of counter-move, time will tell, but the input data is not very optimistic for the Americans: the reliability of the main (unlike the still practically experimental "Sarmat") Minuteman ICBM remains in question, hypersonic programs are in a coma. Moreover, in early September, the CNN agency pleased with the news in the spirit of the infamous Gorbachev conversion: due to the current economic situation and the shortage of fuel uranium, the US Department of Energy ordered that some of the nuclear warhead cores stored in reserve be melted down to power the reactors.

As you can see, strategic deterrence, which some people without a second thought have long since written off as an empty propaganda bogeyman, has not disappeared and is quite noticeably influencing the course of global processes. For now, our enemies are smart enough not to get into trouble – perhaps they will be smart enough to do so until their defeat.