Hello Pavel,

I have to disagree. I think that the direct mention of Russia's allies and of preemption, instead of opaque references to doctrine, is new. Furthermore, if we are to consider the strategic context of this statement, it is likely that it is related to the situation in Belorussia and the construction of the new gas pipelines to Germany and Bulgaria.

Russia's strategy is to use the North and South Streams to diversify transit routes to Europe and to extract higher prices from its customers. If Lukashenko defects to the West and Timoshenko stabilises the Ukraine, this strategy will fail. Thus, this statement may well be designed to deter any attempt to defect on the part of Belorussia.

It is also possible that this is a non-specific statement caused by the weakness of Russia's conventional forces, but this is less likely, since allies would not need to be mentioned.

Pavel, yes, there is nothing new in General Baluyevskiy's statement. It's very much in Russian military doctrine. I think Russian military is bit nervous because of rapid declining of its conventional forces. Russia's dependence on nuclear weapons will be minimized if its conventional forces become strong. Russia should modernize its conventional forces and maintain a level parallel to NATO and other big military powers.

The biggest problem with getting conventional forces to the point where reliance on nuclear weapons is minimized is that they cost a lot more to produce, and more importantly to maintain. You literally get much more bang for the buck with nukes.

Well, as for now Russia practically lost its conventional forces due to 20 years old process of their constant non-modernization, scraping Soviet weapons, not buying new ones and so forth. In such situation relying exclusively on nuclear weapons indefinitely isn't a smart choice because US will have overwhelming superiority and China will achieve parity with Russia in the near future. Also other states close to Russian borders become nuclear powers. Then Russian nuclear deterrent as a sole option will be unreliable. It remembers me a situation with NATO's shift from "massive retaliation" to the "flexible response" doctrine. Yet Russia can't follow this way because of lack of money for conventional arms.
Finally Russia is now in a quite vulnerable international position and thus its foreign influence deteriorates sharply. That is what Kremlin politicians and generals are really worried about!

PS. On the other hand I can't understand why Russia doesn't have money for conventional defense. In the last several years Russia had a plenty of petrodollars but post-Soviet military-industrial complex develops and sells new weapons only to foreign customers...It is oddly enough, indeed!

- Pavel, you've cited Gen. Youri Baluevski incompletely; the exact phrase was:

'We are not going to attack anybody, but we consider necessary, that our partners precisely understood: noone must have doubts that Armed Forces will use the nuclear weapons preemtively to protect the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and it's allies, in the cases stipulated by the military doctrine of the Russian Federation'.

(in Russian: "Мы ни на кого не собираемся нападать, но считаем необходимым, чтобы все наши партнеры четко понимали и ни у кого не было сомнения в том, что для защиты суверенитета и территориальной целостности РФ и ее союзников, будут применены Вооруженные силы, в том числе и превентивно, с использованием ядерного оружия, в случаях, оговоренных доктринальными документами РФ").

- Also, Baluevski has made an important addition to his previous phrase:

'Military force can and should be applied to demonstration of determination of the top [political] management of the country to defend it's (country) interests; and, as an extreme measure, [military force] can be applied massively, [in the situations] when all other means [to protect the sovereignity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation], will be inefficient'.

(in Russian: "Военная сила может и должна быть применена для демонстрации решимости высшего руководства страны отстаивать ее интересы, и как крайняя мера, массированно - тогда, когда окажутся неэффективными все остальные средства").

I would say that the danger of this kind of statements is not necessarily because of the threats of the use of force. There is nothing new there. In my view, the problem is that the military have very strange ideas about what the threats are and how to deal with them. And it's not just the military. I'll try to write about it in more detail.

Baluyevskiy is in a no-win situation! Why don't he bash Putin for such enormous destruction of the Russian armed forces? His boss speaks alot about "strenghten Russian military" but in practice he acts directly otherwise! For example several days ago there was an announcement that shortly after 2010 practically entire Russian fighter planes will be withdrawn from service. In the same time new aircraft buyings are close to nil. It means Russia will stay without air forces. Baluyeavski isn't stupid. He knows very well in ten years his country will be possessed Chinese in size nuclear forces and conventional army reduced up to internal security troops. Unfortunately he can't reverse this trend because of some mad Kremlin's military policy.

That is why he is so scared...and thus he threatens its nuclear weapons all the World. However everybody knows it is only a poor comedy!

Stratfor believes the comment is connected to Kosovo and Russia is trying to make the Europeans anxious.

I think Stratfor is wrong.

Russia could put pressure on NATO ten years ago during Kosovo War. There was a lot more nukes and conventional forces accesible then. Now Russia is without any viable options in that issue.
Maybe some real Russian indirect respons should be an unilateral recognition of two Georgian breakway republics. However I think Putin's government won't dare to act like that...

Besides there is a quite interesting news from Serbia. Nationalistic candidate who leads now in presidential race stated in press interview that Serbia may agree on Russian military installations especialy some early warning radars on its territory because US already have a big military base in Kosovo!
Oddly enough idea...

Do you think the NATO generals manifesto is a response to Baluyevskiy or vice versa? Maybe Gen Baluyevskiy got an early release of the manifesto and decided to push their standing....

No, I think generals remarks are just a noise generated by the systems. Baluyevskiy is trying to follow the party line and sound tough, while NATO generals are tyring to find some kind of mission for otherwise useless nuclear weapons.

If you think there's nothing new in Baluevsky statement, you haven't looked carefully. This is the first time Russia claims it can go nuclear to protect not only itself, but also its allies' sovereignity/territorial integrity. Also it's pretty naive to suppose that Baluevsky would make such a strong statement without Putin's consent.

Nuclear weapons are never useless...only obsolete. The NATO generals do have some sense in them. Any potential adversary must account for nuclear weapons in Europe, specifically NATO nuclear weapons.

Fact: nuclear weapons are spreading in the world and will likely remain the cornerstone for many state's sovereignty. The more states that have them, the more likely one is to be used. This does not mean global thermo-nuclear war, but it does mean one-to-ten detonations in a region conflict.

Considering this, I REALLY doubt that the US, Russia, UK, France, China, and for that matter NATO, would ever get rid of them...better safe than sorry.

Parimal Debnath [January 20, 2008]

"Russia should modernize its conventional forces and maintain a level parallel to NATO and other big military powers"

It's just a problem.

20 years ago the USSR and Warsaw Treaty Organization can "maintain a level parallel to NATO". Modern Russia is a half of the USSR, and former WTO nations are the modern NATO members - so it's impossible now.

But generals and politics still live 20 years ago...