The Conditions Under Which Russia Would Use Nukes

16 February 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

On 5 October 2023, at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, a prominent Russian political scientist Sergey Karaganov publicly addressed President Putin:

Mr President, there is one simple question that is currently being actively discussed outside Russia and at the Valdai Club. I will formulate it in the following way, and this is my wording, of course, I do not speak for everyone. Hasn’t our doctrine on using nuclear weapons become obsolete? I believe that it has certainly grown obsolete, and that it even looks frivolous. It was created in different times and, maybe, in a different situation, and it also follows old theories. Deterrence does not work anymore. Is it high time we modify the doctrine on using nuclear weapons, lowering the nuclear threshold. …

Putin rejected the proposal by saying “I know your position” but:

Let me remind you that there are two reasons stipulated in the Russian Military Doctrine for the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia. The first is the use of nuclear weapons against us, which would entail a so-called retaliatory strike. But what does this mean in practice? The missiles are launched, our early warning system detects them and reports that they are targeting the territory of the Russian Federation – this happens within seconds, just so that everyone understands – and once we know that Russia has been attacked, we respond to this aggression. …

Seconds after we detect the launch of missiles, wherever they are coming from, from any point in the World Ocean or land, the counter strike in response will involve hundreds – hundreds of our missiles in the air, so that no enemy will have a chance to survive. And [we can respond] in several directions at once.

The second reason for the potential use of these weapons is an existential threat to the Russian state – even if conventional weapons are used against Russia, but the very existence of Russia as a state is threatened.

These are the two possible reasons [and there won’t be any other reason].

Unlike the U.S. Government, which even America’s leading scientist of weapons and weaponry, MIT’s Dr. Theodore Postol, had concluded on 1 March 2017 that the Obama Administration was installing and Trump continuing to install on U.S. ballistic missiles radically new “nuclear fuses” whose only purpose would be to win — NOT to deter prevent/deter — a nuclear war:

This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.

But actually, the key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence — the prior system, for deterrence, having been called “M.A.D.” for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ in such a conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being ‘winnable’, was the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations, Foreign Affairs and International Security, both formally introducing the concept of “Nuclear Primacy” or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia. Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream in the U.S. Government. It is consistently NOT the Russian policy: they stay with “M.A.D.” That’s a huge difference.

On 27 June 2023, Russia’s RT News headlined “Sergey Karaganov: Here’s why Russia has to consider launching a nuclear strike on Western Europe”, and he said of the U.S.-and-allied countries or U.S. empire, that

Because their military-industrial complex is greater than ours, they just want to wear us down.

I hope we never use nuclear weapons, but the fact that we refuse to allow their use in all situations except in the case of mortal danger to the state itself seems to me to be reckless.

The US is tying Russia’s hands in this way, hoping that in the long run this long war will cause an internal implosion. And, as a result, this would radically weaken its main rival, China, which will be left to fend for itself. …

If there are to be nuclear strikes, they should be aimed at countries in Western Europe that have been most supportive of the mercenary regime in Kiev.

I was shocked to find in the numerous reader-comments to his article, that, just like in the U.S. empire countries, most of the public seemed to believe in the utterly counter-factual view that in a nuclear war involving Russia and NATO, there would be a winner. (Whereas in the U.S. empire, the public predominantly want the winner to be the empire, the public outside it predominantly want Russia to win it — but there would be ONLY lose-lose in that contest.) However, unfortunately few of the reader-comments actually addressed Karaganov’s argument. Apparently, on the pro-Russia side, just as on the pro-U.S.-empire side, the public aren’t very interested in this issue: maybe it’s too theoretical for them.

On 14 July 2023, RT News headlined “Eric Zuesse: Amid talk of a preemptive nuclear strike on NATO from Russia, why doesn’t Moscow try this instead? The country should engage NATO members with proposals for bilateral agreements, which will also help them to regain sovereignty”, and I said of Karaganov’s proposal:

I believe that if Russia so much as even considers this course it would be a catastrophic mistake without first having offered to each and every Western European country a certain type of bilateral mutual non-aggression treaty which would also require – where applicable – that they withdraw from America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO. Even if only one member of the bloc broke away, that could spark the end of the organization.

Putin has thus far responded to the West’s aggressive expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders by targeting missiles against new member states, and not by offering each of them individually a bilateral treaty-proposal and guarantees for peace, including mutual weapons-inspections. Instead, it seems that a NATO nation cannot quit the anti-Russia bloc and manage its own peaceful relations with Moscow, plus increased trade, and other mutual bilateral benefits. However, by abandoning alliances with the world’s most aggressive nation, the US, and agreeing with Russia directly, a future of peace and mutual economic benefit could prevail across Europe. Putin ought to make this offer now. It might prevent World War Three. The historical background explains why:

I agree with Dr. Karaganov that a fundamental change is needed in Russia’s relations with the other countries of Europe, but I propose that the first step in this regard MUST be the following Russian offer to each one of them:

The offer should be made only privately to each US-allied country. If any government concerned privately says no, Russia should then offer the deal publicly. Public opinion might then force that government – whose prior rejection of the deal would not yet be publicly known – to agree to it. Thus, there would be two chances to obtain an agreement, and this would greatly increase the odds of success in each case.

The substance of the agreement would be as follows:

Russia will announce that its nuclear missiles will be targeted ONLY against the US and its allies, including all NATO member-nations, but not neutral or unaligned nations. In other words, any new NATO member-nation will thereby become a target added to Russia’s list for destruction in any World War III scenario that might transpire between the United States and Russia. Any existing NATO nation that accepts the offered treaty would no longer threaten Russia and would consequently no longer be targeted by Russia.

Furthermore, Moscow should simultaneously announce that if any nation wishes to have an assurance that Russia will never, under any circumstance, invade it, then it will welcome from that nation a request for such an assurance from Russia. Moscow will include in that announcement explicit invitations to all nations which have, at some time, expressed an intention or a possible future intention to join NATO. In this regard, it will also state, in advance, that if ever Russia were to provide to a nation such an assurance and subsequently to violate it, then it would be violating its own tradition of rigidly adhering to international treaties that it has signed. Additionally, it would also thereby be forfeiting to the country it had thereby broken its commitment to and violated, any and all of its rights under international law. Consequently, under the arrangement that is being proposed here, there would be no nation in the entire world that has, or ever did have, so strict an international treaty legal obligation as Russia would be beholden to under this proposed arrangement. It would be much clearer than what the international law-breaking US government ever did or can offer in the NATO treaty or any other. Russia’s record of strictly abiding by its agreements speaks for itself. So does America’s record of violating agreements.

Finally, this proposed arrangement would offer, to all existing members of NATO, a promise that if and when any such existing member-nation will quit that anti-Russia military alliance, Moscow will be happy to – at the moment that this is done – automatically provide to that nation the same legal commitment never to invade that nation, as has just been described here. In other words, the proposed arrangement will offer, to the entire world, a stark and clear choice between peace with Russia or being allied with the most aggressive nation in the world’s history. One that places illegal sanctions, organizes coups, and even invades states that fail to cooperate with its goal to replace the United Nations as being the ultimate arbiter of international laws. A country seeking to be the ultimate arbiter of what it calls “the rules-based international order” in which all of those ‘rules’ come ultimately from whomever rules the US government.

On the other hand, Moscow would be helping to reposition the UN into what had been its original goal: to replace the historic use of force by-and-between rival international empires. This vision was to create a peaceful and democratic international world order, in which a “United Nations” would be a worldwide federation of all nations, in which international laws will be produced by the global legislature of duly authorized (under each individual nation’s own internal laws) representatives, and adjudicated by the global Supreme Court, and enforced by the sole global possessor and user of strategic weaponry – the UN. Additionally, penalties that are ruled by this global Court of international relations should be enforced against the government of any nation that has been ruled by this Court to have violated the rights of any other nation’s government.

In this understanding of the UN’s proper scope of power and of authority, the body would have no authority and no power regarding the constitutions or laws of any nation that apply internally to a given nation, but ONLY to international laws, which pertain exclusively to international relations, and never to a nation’s internal matters. It would make another World War – another war between empires – impossible, by eliminating all empires, and replacing all of them by an international democracy of (an international federation of) nations. Russia, in the proposed arrangement, would be striving to achieve, for the entire planet, what had been once planned for the post-War War Two world.

In addition, of course, any such nation would receive extra-beneficial international-trade terms, such as on Russian oil and gas (Russia’s costing less than a third of what EU nations now are paying — and this will supercharge that country’s manufacturing base and economy).

I was likewise surprised to find in the numerous reader-comments to my article that they were even more favorable; however, yet again, only few of the commenters seemed to me to have thought much about the problem.

On 21 November 2025, America’s neoconservative Center for American Progress, which is funded by entities that are controlled by Democratic Party megadonors, headlined “Trump’s 28-Point Peace Plan Will Invite the Next War”, and opened about this still-secret plan (sometimes called “Trump’s 28-point plan”, sometimes called instead “Russia’s plan,” though it was neither, at least not yet):

The Trump administration’s 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine that leaked this week does not create a path out of the war; it merely repackages the Kremlin’s long-standing demands and presents them as diplomatic breakthrough. The Russian proposal speaks for itself: It demands that Ukraine surrender territory, accept limits on its armed forces, and curb Western military assistance. It punishes the victim and shields the aggressor from any cost — a dynamic that leads to more instability, not peace.

On 11 December 2025, the neoconservative Harvard Belfer Center headlined “A Flawed Path to Peace: The Weaknesses of the Proposed U.S.–Russia Framework for Ukraine” (likewise funded by billionaires) reported that the plan had already been rejected by the EU.

Also on on 11 December 2025, Russia’s Tass News Agency headlined “Russia ready to legally formalize guarantees of non-aggression against EU, NATO — Lavrov: Russia harbors no aggressive plans against NATO members or EU countries, the Russian foreign minister said”, and opened:

Russia harbors no aggressive plans against NATO members or EU countries and is thus ready to enter into written pacts with them to this effect, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated during an ambassadorial roundtable on the topic of settlement in Ukraine.

“We do not harbor, [Russia’s] President [Vladimir Putin] has clearly stated this, any aggressive plans against either NATO members or European Union members, and we are ready to record corresponding guarantees in writing, in a legal document. Of course, on a collective, mutual basis,” the minister noted.

It was vague but seemed to be contemplating a single Russian treaty with the EU (which would be impossible) instead of nation-by-nation (with individual EU-member nations, such as I had proposed).

On 10 February 2026, Russia’s Izvestia headlined “The Russian Foreign Ministry declared the EU’s silence on Russia’s proposal of a non-aggression document”, and opened:

The European Union (EU) has not responded to Russia’s proposal to sign a non-aggression pact put forward at the end of 2025. This was stated by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko in an interview with Izvestia on February 10.

It is clarified that the Russian initiative aimed at eliminating the threat from Ukraine and its neutral status has been ignored by European leaders.

“We recognize that a peaceful settlement in Ukraine must take into account the interests of Ukraine’s security, but the key importance is, of course, the interests of Russia’s security. If you look at and carefully study all the statements made by the leaders of the European Union, no one talks about guarantees of Russia’s security. And this is a key element of reaching an agreement. No peace treaty is possible without it,” he said.

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister stressed that the guarantees should include excluding the prospect of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, refusing to deploy foreign troops on its territory, as well as assurances that Kiev would not pose a threat to Moscow.

Grushko noted that the EU’s position, which ignores these demands, excludes its participation in the peace process, and this complicates any prospects for constructive negotiations.

“Ukraine’s neutrality would be the best guarantee of the country’s security.”

The EU was created by the U.S. Government; so, the pretense that it is anything better than a U.S. shill — instead of being a part of a good-cop/bad-cop routine (each “cop” playing-off against the other to achieve what actually both “cops” — the U.S. and the EU — want, which is a conviction against the defendant), is rather like a defendant who prefers to have no lawyer on his/her side. It seems to me that Russia is satisfied with that position, but I have no idea as to why. I cannot understand it.

If, say, Hungary, or Slovakia, or some other EU member-nation, would decide that its future would be better in an alliance with Russia and China than against both (as the U.S. empire fixedly is), and would therefore join that alliance with Russia irrespective of whether or not the EU would continue to allow them to be retained as being EU members — then would this not give that nation greatly increased clout (vis-a-vis both Russia and the EU) and security, than it now has (with the EU and NATO)? If so, then why isn’t Putin doing it — offering each EU-member-nation this option?

As things currently stand, the European countries are being mercilessly exploited and harmed by allying themselves with the U.S. regime. Each of them can actually get a much better deal than that, from Russia, which seeks win-win relationships, NOT like America’s Government demands, win-lose relationships.

And if even only a single EU-member-nation does this, then the possibility of a world-ending nuclear war, ww3, will plunge, and FINALLY there will be able to be the “peace dividend” that the U.S. regime secretly scotched on 24 February 1990.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.