LONDON, Sept 27 (Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin has set a “red line” for the U.S. and its allies, indicating that Russia might respond with nuclear weapons if Ukraine is permitted to launch strikes deep into Russian territory using long-range Western missiles.

However, some Western observers are questioning whether he truly intends to act on this threat.

This question is crucial for the direction of the ongoing conflict. If Putin is just bluffing, as Ukraine and some of its backers assert, then the West might feel emboldened to increase its military aid to Ukraine despite Moscow’s threats.

Conversely, should Putin be serious, there is a risk—reiterated by Moscow and acknowledged by Washington—that the conflict could escalate into a global war.

Most recently, Putin on Wednesday broadened the range of circumstances under which Russia might resort to nuclear weapons.

He stated that nuclear action could occur if there was a significant conventional cross-border assault involving aircraft, missiles, or drones. A nuclear nation aiding an aggressor against Russia would be viewed as complicit in that attack.

These criteria directly reflect the situation that might emerge should the West permit Ukraine to hit deep within Russian territory using Western long-range missiles such as U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows, which Putin claims would require Western intelligence and targeting support.

Nikolai Sokov, a former Soviet and Russian diplomat, remarked, “It was a very clear message: ‘Don’t make a mistake – such actions could lead to nuclear war.'”

Bahram Ghiassee, a nuclear analyst based in London at the Henry Jackson Society think tank, suggested that the timing of Putin’s statements coincides with Ukraine’s efforts to acquire long-range missiles and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s discussions with U.S. President Joe Biden this week.

Ghiassee stated, “Putin is sending a clear message: halt your support now.”

‘Nuclear Intimidation’

Reactions from Kyiv were immediate, with Zelenskyy’s chief of staff accusing Putin of engaging in “nuclear intimidation.”

Anton Gerashchenko, a former adviser to Ukraine’s internal affairs minister, remarked on X, “This appears to be yet another bluff that showcases Putin’s vulnerabilities. He would not dare to use nuclear weapons as it would alienate him entirely.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticized Putin’s warning as reckless and miscalculated, noting it was not the first time he has “wiggled the nuclear saber.”

Andreas Umland, a specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, claimed that Putin was engaging in a psychological ploy.

Umland remarked, “This is a strategic PR maneuver from the Kremlin, lacking genuine substance. It aims to instill fear into the leaders and voters of nations backing Ukraine.”

Fabian Hoffmann, a doctoral research fellow and defense analyst in Oslo, expressed that while Putin’s comments should not be dismissed, it is essential not to overreact.

Hoffmann stated on X, “The usage of Russian nuclear arms isn’t imminent. Only when Russia indicates real preparation should concerns escalate.”

He noted that potential next steps could involve removing warheads from storage and pairing them with delivery systems for a tactical strike, followed by preparations for larger-scale nuclear usage, which U.S. intelligence would likely detect.

Moreover, security expert Mark Galeotti stated, “Talk may be simple and have political repercussions, but there’s currently no proof of an actual willingness to deploy nuclear weapons, which we could detect if it ever occurs.”

Lowering the Threshold

Nevertheless, Putin has become more precise about the scenarios that could trigger nuclear action. His spokesperson indicated on Thursday that his comments were meant to convey to Western nations that considerable consequences would follow if they participated in attacks against Russia.

Simultaneously, the proclaimed changes did not reach the demands of some hardline commentators. Sergei Karaganov, a prominent figure among hawks, has advocated for a limited nuclear strike in Europe to make Russia’s adversaries take its nuclear deterrent seriously.

In practical terms, the adjustments extend Russia’s nuclear protection to include Belarus, a close ally. They also lower the conditions for potential nuclear action by indicating that such action could result from a conventional assault perceived as a “major threat to our sovereignty.”

Previously, Russian nuclear policy spoke of a threat to “the very existence of the state.”

Putin presented his announcement in a brief four-minute video addressing the nine members of a security.

There is a council that convenes twice a year to deliberate on nuclear deterrence matters.

The speaker mentioned that using nuclear weapons is an extreme action and that Russia has consistently handled the topic with care.

Ministers and intelligence officials paid close attention, occasionally showing signs of restlessness or rustling papers. Among the attendees, Alexei Likhachev, the leader of the state nuclear firm Rosatom, was noted for taking meticulous notes.

However, Putin’s primary audience was the leaders in Kyiv, Washington, and London.

Yevgeny Minchenko, a political analyst from Russia, indicated that the main point of the revised nuclear doctrine was a clear warning to Ukraine and the West against escalating the conflict further into Russian territory.

The underlying message was, “If you try to harm us indirectly, we will retaliate against both you and your proxy,” he explained.

Sergei Markov, a former advisor to the Kremlin, mentioned that these updates could pave the way for Russia to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in specific situations, particularly in relation to Ukraine.

“The standards for nuclear arms usage have been lowered, making it more feasible for Russia to act,” Markov stated in a blog post.

The modification of the nuclear doctrine was in response to a perceived threat of significant escalation from the West. The West had assumed that Russia would not be the first to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, but Russia is now signaling its readiness to do so.

Markov suggested that Russia might use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine or target airbases in Romania or Poland if Ukrainian fighter jets operating from there attacked Moscow or central Russia with support from U.S. or British satellites.

‘No Respect’

Military analyst Igor Korotchenko, a frequent presence on state television, remarked that the updates were necessary as the West had overlooked multiple warnings against escalating tensions, including Russian military drills over the summer that simulated tactical nuclear appeals.

“Our Western counterparts seem to have no regard for any ‘red lines,’ believing that their actions regarding Ukraine’s arming and strikes deep into Russian territory will not provoke a nuclear response,” Korotchenko told Izvestia newspaper.

Vladimir Avatkov, a member of an official advisory group to Putin on international matters, stated that the announcement of the changes in doctrine allows Russia to preempt any Western decisions regarding military support for Ukraine.

“Let them ponder this now,” he shared on Telegram. “This aims not only to caution them but also to instill a sense of fear that they may have lost. It perhaps encourages some strategic reconsideration.”

The adjustments have been greeted positively by Russian nationalists and war bloggers, many of whom have long supported the idea of utilizing nuclear power to compel Ukrainian submission, prompting discussions about potential triggers for nuclear response.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former president, warned that Putin’s statements should give reason for pause to Ukraine and the West.

“The modification of the conditions under which our nation might deploy nuclear weapons could deter those adversaries who still possess a sense of self-preservation,” he commented.

‘Like small kids’

Sokov, a former Russian diplomat, expressed a clear frustration in Moscow regarding the West’s apparent indifference to numerous nuclear warnings.

He pointed out that during three rounds of military drills earlier this year simulating the launch of tactical nuclear missiles, there was a noted lack of attention from Western media and experts.

“Now, they have chosen to amplify their message,” Sokov said. “Putin perceives the West as childlike, needing clear explanations as they seem to struggle with comprehension.”

Sokov voiced concerns about the “careless dialogue” among politicians and analysts suggesting that the West has violated several Russian red lines without consequence. This includes providing Ukraine with tanks and F-16 jets.

However, he asserted that the West has not yet crossed two significant red lines that Russia has clearly communicated: deploying NATO troops to engage in combat in Ukraine and allowing Ukraine to launch Western long-range missiles into Russia.

“How can we predict Putin’s response if we haven’t actually crossed any Russian boundaries?” he questioned during a telephone interview, noting that this perspective relies more on speculation than factual data. “I worry about the casual conversations, especially since they may lead us to a scenario that is entirely new to us Ignoring potential risks could lead to extremely unfavorable surprises.”