The ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles pose a significant threat to Russia in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. These advanced weapons, supplied by the West, enhance Ukraine's ability to target Russian positions with greater precision and range.

Russia-Ukraine War: ATACMS and Storm Shadow Missiles Present A Big Threat To Russia

Ukraine has struck Russia using a British-supplied weapon for the first time, marking a significant development in the ongoing conflict. The move highlights growing international military support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.

Russia-Ukraine War: Ukraine Hits Russia With British Weapon For The First Time

Ukraine fired a number of British Storm Shadow cruise missiles into Russia’s Kursk region on Wednesday, a day after firing American long-range missiles into the country. Watch this report for more details!

Russia-Ukraine War: Ukraine Hits Russia With British Weapon For First Time

Russia-Ukraine War: ATACMS & Storm Shadow Missiles Present a Big Threat to Russia

Russian President transfers more than 70 animals from Moscow to Pyongyang amid strengthening ties with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un during Ukraine war

Russia Sends Animals to Pyongyang Amid Strengthening Ties with Kim Jong-Un

A Western official on Thursday (Nov 21) denied a claim by Ukraine that Russia had launched an&nbsp;intercontinental ballistic missile from its southern Astrakhan region, saying it was a ballistic missile.

“It was instead a ballistic missile, which was aimed at Dnipro, in Ukraine’s southeast," the western official was quoted as saying by ABC News.

The reported strike&nbsp;comes&nbsp;in a possible retaliation to Ukraine's use of US and British missiles to strike targets inside Russia this week. Moscow had, for months, warned that the use of American missiles to strike inside its borders would be seen as a major escalation.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-us-embassy-in-kyiv-shuts-down-amid-looming-airstrike-threat-777618">Russia-Ukraine war: US embassy in Kyiv shuts down amid looming airstrike threat</a>

<h2>What did the Russian ICBM target?</h2>

As per a statement by the Ukraine Air Force, the latest Russian attack targeted enterprises and critical infrastructure in Ukraine's central-eastern city of Dnipro.&nbsp;

"In particular, an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched from the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation," the statement said, without mentioning what kind of ICMB was used in the attack.

The air force said that it had downed six Russian Kh-101 cruise missiles, but did not elaborate on whether the ICMB was downed.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/an-analysis-of-putins-potential-choices-will-russia-resort-to-nuke-weapons-777647">Will Russia resort&nbsp;to using Nuclear weapons?&nbsp;An analysis of Putin's potential choices</a>

A rehabilitation centre, homes, and an industrial enterprise were damaged by Russian airstrikes in Dnipro, according to the regional head.

"Two people were wounded — a 57-year-old man was treated on the scene and a 42-year-old woman was hospitalised," said the official, Sergiy Lysak, as reported by AFP.

A rehab centre for disabled people was damaged in the attack, but no injuries were reported. Nine garages and an industrial facility were also damaged, said Lysak. He added that strikes on Kryvyi Rih, west of Dnipro, injured two other people, who were transported to a hospital, an administrative building was destroyed, and two residential buildings were damaged.

<h2>What are ICMBs?</h2>

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are missiles that can travel a long range of over 5,500 km (3,418 miles), which means they can strike targets virtually anywhere in the world. These missiles can carry conventional weapons as well as nuclear warheads.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Western official on Thursday (Nov 21) denied a claim by Ukraine that Russia had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from its southern Astrakhan region, saying it was a ballistic missile.

A Western official on Thursday (Nov 21) denied a claim by Ukraine that Russia had launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from its southern Astrakhan region, saying it was a ballistic missile. “It was instead a ballistic missile, which was aimed at Dnipro, in Ukraine’s southeast," the western official was quoted as saying by ABC News. The reported strike comes in a possible retaliation to Ukraine's use of US and British missiles to strike targets inside Russia this week. Moscow had, for months, warned that the use of American missiles to strike inside its borders would be seen as a major escalation. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: US embassy in Kyiv shuts down amid looming airstrike threat What did the Russian ICBM target? As per a statement by the Ukraine Air Force, the latest Russian attack targeted enterprises and critical infrastructure in Ukraine's central-eastern city of Dnipro. "In particular, an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched from the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation," the statement said, without mentioning what kind of ICMB was used in the attack. The air force said that it had downed six Russian Kh-101 cruise missiles, but did not elaborate on whether the ICMB was downed. Also read | Will Russia resort to using Nuclear weapons? An analysis of Putin's potential choices A rehabilitation centre, homes, and an industrial enterprise were damaged by Russian airstrikes in Dnipro, according to the regional head. "Two people were wounded — a 57-year-old man was treated on the scene and a 42-year-old woman was hospitalised," said the official, Sergiy Lysak, as reported by AFP. A rehab centre for disabled people was damaged in the attack, but no injuries were reported. Nine garages and an industrial facility were also damaged, said Lysak. He added that strikes on Kryvyi Rih, west of Dnipro, injured two other people, who were transported to a hospital, an administrative building was destroyed, and two residential buildings were damaged. What are ICMBs? Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are missiles that can travel a long range of over 5,500 km (3,418 miles), which means they can strike targets virtually anywhere in the world. These missiles can carry conventional weapons as well as nuclear warheads. (With inputs from agencies)

'It was a ballistic missile,' Western official rejects Ukraine's ICBM claim against Russia

The US Embassy in Kyiv will resume operations after temporarily suspending activities due to the threat of air attacks. The embassy had scaled back its staff and services earlier in the Russia-Ukraine war for safety concerns but is now returning to full operations as security conditions improve.

Russia-Ukraine War: 'Russia Fires ICMB, Cruise Missiles Against Ukraine', Says Ukraine

The US Embassy in Kyiv will resume operations after temporarily suspending activities due to the threat of air attacks. The embassy had scaled back its staff and services earlier in the Russia-Ukraine war for safety concerns, but is now returning to full operations as security conditions improve.

Russia-Ukraine War: US Embassy In Kyiv To Resume Operations After Air Attack Threat

US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. This comes after Biden, recently, allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory.

<h2>'Nonpersistent' landmines</h2>

As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the newly authorised land mines are described as "nonpersistent," which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-amid-shifting-political-winds-zelensky-warns-ukraine-will-lose-without-us-aid-777517">Russia-Ukraine war:&nbsp;Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid</a>

Ukrainian officials have reportedly pledged to restrict their use to non-populated areas, focusing on the embattled eastern front where Russian forces have gained significant ground. &nbsp;

"Russia is attacking Ukrainian lines in the east with waves of troops, regardless of the casualties that they're suffering," one of the officials told WP adding "So the Ukrainians are obviously taking losses, and more towns and cities are at risk of falling. These mines were made specifically to combat exactly this."

"When they're used in concert with the other munitions that we already are providing Ukraine, the intent is that they will contribute to a more effective defense," they explained.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-approves-nuclear-strikes-on-non-nuclear-states-777334" target="_blank">Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states</a>

<h2>Ethical and diplomatic backlash &nbsp;</h2>

The decision has reignited global debate over the use of anti-personnel landmines. While neither the United States nor Russia is one of the 164 signatories of the Ottawa Convention, aka the Mine Ban Treaty, that prohibits the deployment and transfer of antipersonnel mines, Ukraine is.

Human Rights Watch denounced the decision, calling it "shocking and devastating," and Deputy Director Mary Wareham cautioned that even "nonpersistent" mines endanger civilians, hinder cleanup, and cannot always be safely deactivated.

Furthermore,&nbsp;the deployment of US-supplied anti-personnel mines could influence other nations to reconsider their stances on the Ottawa Convention. Earlier this year, the Baltic States like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia debated leaving the treaty to strengthen their defences against Russian aggression, but ultimately opted to reinforce antitank measures instead.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. This comes after Biden, recently, allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory.

US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. This comes after Biden, recently, allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory. 'Nonpersistent' landmines As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the newly authorised land mines are described as "nonpersistent," which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid Ukrainian officials have reportedly pledged to restrict their use to non-populated areas, focusing on the embattled eastern front where Russian forces have gained significant ground. "Russia is attacking Ukrainian lines in the east with waves of troops, regardless of the casualties that they're suffering," one of the officials told WP adding "So the Ukrainians are obviously taking losses, and more towns and cities are at risk of falling. These mines were made specifically to combat exactly this." "When they're used in concert with the other munitions that we already are providing Ukraine, the intent is that they will contribute to a more effective defense," they explained. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states Ethical and diplomatic backlash The decision has reignited global debate over the use of anti-personnel landmines. While neither the United States nor Russia is one of the 164 signatories of the Ottawa Convention, aka the Mine Ban Treaty, that prohibits the deployment and transfer of antipersonnel mines, Ukraine is. Human Rights Watch denounced the decision, calling it "shocking and devastating," and Deputy Director Mary Wareham cautioned that even "nonpersistent" mines endanger civilians, hinder cleanup, and cannot always be safely deactivated. Furthermore, the deployment of US-supplied anti-personnel mines could influence other nations to reconsider their stances on the Ottawa Convention. Earlier this year, the Baltic States like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia debated leaving the treaty to strengthen their defences against Russian aggression, but ultimately opted to reinforce antitank measures instead. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report

Amid shifting political winds and&nbsp;Trump's return&nbsp;to the White House, Ukrainian&nbsp;President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a stark statement on November 19 saying Ukraine will lose against Russia if the US cut the aid for the country.&nbsp;"We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," Zelensky said in an interview to Fox News. Zelensky's statement holds significance as the Republican, during his election campaign, cleared his stance on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.&nbsp;

Talking of Trump's second term, the US President-elect announced the TV star and former Fox News commentator Dr&nbsp;Mehmet Oz (known as 'Dr Oz') to lead&nbsp;the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.&nbsp;Taking to his Truth Social platform, the Republican wrote, "America is facing a Healthcare Crisis and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again."

Moving on, the current US President Joe Biden reportedly authorised the provision of antipersonnel land mines to Ukraine. The step has long drawn criticism from arms control groups but will boost Ukraine's defences against advancing Russian troops.

Click on the headlines to read more:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-amid-shifting-political-winds-zelensky-warns-ukraine-will-lose-without-us-aid-777517">Russia-Ukraine war | Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid</a>

<img alt="main img" src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2024/11/20/466906-new-wion-37.jpg?imwidth=400" />

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning: without continued US military aid, Ukraine's ability to withstand Russia's ongoing invasion is at grave risk. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday (Nov 19), Zelensky admitted, "If they cut (the aid), we will — I think we will lose".&nbsp;"We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," he added.&nbsp;The President of the war-torn nation also highlighted the critical importance of US-Ukraine unity, describing it as the foundation of Ukraine's resilience.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545">Biden approves antipersonnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report</a>

<img alt="main img" src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2024/11/20/466924-new-wion-39.jpg?imwidth=400" />

US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. This comes after Biden, recently, allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory.&nbsp;As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the newly authorised land mines are described as "nonpersistent," which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-names-tv-star-dr-oz-to-lead-centers-for-medicare-and-medicaid-services-777528">Trump names TV star 'Dr Oz' to lead Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services</a>

<img alt="main img" src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2024/11/20/466914-00036mv9my.jpg?imwidth=400" />

US President-elect Donald Trump announced Dr Mehmet Oz, a former surgeon and TV celebrity known as "Dr Oz," to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Tuesday (Nov 19). Taking to his Truth Social platforms, the Republican wrote, "America is facing a Healthcare Crisis and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/indian-chinese-defence-ministers-to-meet-today-777525">Indian, Chinese defence ministers to meet today</a>

<img alt="main img" src="https://cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/styles/story_page/public/2024/11/20/466912-new-wion-38.jpg?imwidth=400" />

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Chinese Defence Minister Dong Jun will meet later today in Laos on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Plus meeting (ADMM +). This will be the second India-China ministerial meeting in the last two days and comes as ties turn around after the Kazan meeting between PM Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;Delhi Air Pollution Crisis: Delhi Govt Orders Hospitals To Set Up Teams For Respiratory Cases

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/delhi-air-pollution-crisis-delhi-govt-orders-hospitals-to-set-up-teams-for-respiratory-cases-777536/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Amid shifting political winds and Trump's return to the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a stark statement on November 19 saying Ukraine will lose against Russia if the US cut the aid for the country.

Amid shifting political winds and Trump's return to the White House, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a stark statement on November 19 saying Ukraine will lose against Russia if the US cut the aid for the country. "We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," Zelensky said in an interview to Fox News. Zelensky's statement holds significance as the Republican, during his election campaign, cleared his stance on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Talking of Trump's second term, the US President-elect announced the TV star and former Fox News commentator Dr Mehmet Oz (known as 'Dr Oz') to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Taking to his Truth Social platform, the Republican wrote, "America is facing a Healthcare Crisis and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again." Moving on, the current US President Joe Biden reportedly authorised the provision of antipersonnel land mines to Ukraine. The step has long drawn criticism from arms control groups but will boost Ukraine's defences against advancing Russian troops. Click on the headlines to read more: Russia-Ukraine war | Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning: without continued US military aid, Ukraine's ability to withstand Russia's ongoing invasion is at grave risk. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday (Nov 19), Zelensky admitted, "If they cut (the aid), we will — I think we will lose". "We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," he added. The President of the war-torn nation also highlighted the critical importance of US-Ukraine unity, describing it as the foundation of Ukraine's resilience. Biden approves antipersonnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. This comes after Biden, recently, allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory. As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the newly authorised land mines are described as "nonpersistent," which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians. Trump names TV star 'Dr Oz' to lead Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services US President-elect Donald Trump announced Dr Mehmet Oz, a former surgeon and TV celebrity known as "Dr Oz," to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Tuesday (Nov 19). Taking to his Truth Social platforms, the Republican wrote, "America is facing a Healthcare Crisis and there may be no Physician more qualified and capable than Dr. Oz to Make America Healthy Again." Indian, Chinese defence ministers to meet today Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Chinese Defence Minister Dong Jun will meet later today in Laos on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Plus meeting (ADMM +). This will be the second India-China ministerial meeting in the last two days and comes as ties turn around after the Kazan meeting between PM Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Watch | Delhi Air Pollution Crisis: Delhi Govt Orders Hospitals To Set Up Teams For Respiratory Cases ×

Morning brief: Russia-Ukraine war updates; Trump's latest picks, and more

The United States and several European countries closed their embassies in Kyiv on Wednesday due to fears of a massive Russian rocket attack. Also, US citizens in Ukraine are warned of air raids and told to take precautions. Watch this report for more details!

Russia-Ukraine War: West Shuts Down Embassies in Kyiv Amid Fears of 'Massive Air Attack'

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday (Nov 19) signed a decree allowing Moscow to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, receiving backing from nuclear powers.

This contentious decree comes as the Russia-Ukraine conflict reaches the grim milestone of 1000 days of war and as the United States allows&nbsp;Kyiv to use long-range missiles to strike military targets inside Russia.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/if-war-comes-sweden-finland-issue-survival-guides-as-threat-of-ww3-looms-777185">‘If War Comes’: Sweden, Finland issue survival guides as threat of WW3 looms</a>

<h2>Kremlin defends decision</h2>

In a statement, the Kremlin defended the decree, labelling it as "necessary".

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov in a statement&nbsp;said that Russia&nbsp;broadening its rules for the use of nuclear weapons was a "necessary" response to what the country considers&nbsp;Western threats to its security.

"It was necessary to bring our principles in line with the current situation," he told reporters shortly after the Russian President&nbsp;signed the decree easing the conditions under which Moscow would consider launching a nuclear attack.

He also warned&nbsp;that the use of western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian armed forces against the Russian Federation under the new doctrine could lead to a nuclear response.

<h2>Zelensky asks allies to 'push harder'</h2>

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged Europe to "push Russia harder" as the Ukraine war marks its, 1000th day.&nbsp;

Vowing that Ukraine will never give in to Russia's aggression, Zelensky&nbsp;told a special session of the European Parliament "The more time he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) has, the worse the conditions become".&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-amid-shifting-political-winds-zelensky-warns-ukraine-will-lose-without-us-aid-777517">Russia-Ukraine war: Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid</a>

Tuesday marks the 1,000 days since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022. Zelensky warned that Putin "[would] not stop on his own" and urged that Russia be pushed towards a "just peace".

He added that the deployment of North Korean troops was a significant sign that Russia wanted to escalate the conflict.&nbsp;

"While some European leaders think about some elections, or something like this, at Ukraine's expense, Putin is focused on winning this war," he warned.

(With inputs from agencies)

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday (Nov 19) signed a decree allowing Moscow to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, receiving backing from nuclear powers.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday (Nov 19) signed a decree allowing Moscow to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, receiving backing from nuclear powers. This contentious decree comes as the Russia-Ukraine conflict reaches the grim milestone of 1000 days of war and as the United States allows Kyiv to use long-range missiles to strike military targets inside Russia. Also read | ‘If War Comes’: Sweden, Finland issue survival guides as threat of WW3 looms Kremlin defends decision In a statement, the Kremlin defended the decree, labelling it as "necessary". Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov in a statement said that Russia broadening its rules for the use of nuclear weapons was a "necessary" response to what the country considers Western threats to its security. "It was necessary to bring our principles in line with the current situation," he told reporters shortly after the Russian President signed the decree easing the conditions under which Moscow would consider launching a nuclear attack. He also warned that the use of western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian armed forces against the Russian Federation under the new doctrine could lead to a nuclear response. Zelensky asks allies to 'push harder' Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged Europe to "push Russia harder" as the Ukraine war marks its, 1000th day. Vowing that Ukraine will never give in to Russia's aggression, Zelensky told a special session of the European Parliament "The more time he (Russian President Vladimir Putin) has, the worse the conditions become". Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid Tuesday marks the 1,000 days since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February 2022. Zelensky warned that Putin "[would] not stop on his own" and urged that Russia be pushed towards a "just peace". He added that the deployment of North Korean troops was a significant sign that Russia wanted to escalate the conflict. "While some European leaders think about some elections, or something like this, at Ukraine's expense, Putin is focused on winning this war," he warned. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuke strikes on nuclear power backed states

Ukraine has fired UK-made missiles into Russia for the first time, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict. The missile strikes targeted Russian positions, signaling deeper military cooperation between Ukraine and the West. This development is expected to intensify tensions in the region.

Russia-Ukraine War: Ukraine Fires UK-Made Missiles Into Russia For The First Time

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning: without continued US military aid, Ukraine's ability to withstand Russia's ongoing invasion is at grave risk. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday (Nov 19), Zelensky admitted, "If they cut (the aid), we will — I think we will lose".&nbsp;

"We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," he added.&nbsp;

The President of the war-torn nation also highlighted the critical importance of US-Ukraine unity, describing it as the foundation of Ukraine's resilience.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-approves-nuclear-strikes-on-non-nuclear-states-777334">Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states</a>

Describing the "unity" between Ukraine and the United States as "most important," he once again praised Trump. Zelensky said that the incoming US president could influence Russian President Vladimir Putin "because he is much more stronger than Putin."

He said that the Russian president "can be willing and end this war, but it also depends on the United States of America much more. Putin is weaker than the United States of America."

Previously, he said that Russia's war against his country would "end sooner" once Donald Trump assumes office as the President of the United States.

<h2>US-Ukraine alliance faces uncertainty &nbsp;</h2>

Since the beginning of Russia's "special military operation" in February 2022, the US has been an important ally for Kyiv, with the current Biden administration channelling billions in military and humanitarian aid to bolster Ukraine's defences. However, the impending inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump has introduced an element of uncertainty into the mix.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/zelensky-urges-allies-to-push-russia-harder-as-war-crosses-1000th-day-warns-putin-will-not-stop-on-his-own-777438">Zelensky urges allies to 'push Russia harder' as war crosses 1000th day, warns Putin will not stop on his own</a>

Trump has been vocal throughout his campaign and before about his scepticism of&nbsp;US funnelling billions into supporting Kyiv. The Republican leader has repeatedly referred to the assistance as a drain on American resources and has pledged to end the war swiftly—but has provided few details about his plan to do so. &nbsp;

The debate over US involvement in the Ukraine War has recently&nbsp;intensified with President Joe Biden's approval for Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory. The move, while celebrated by Kyiv, has been criticised by Trump's allies, who accused the incumbent president of a dangerous escalation.

Meanwhile, after Biden's approval, Russia has&nbsp;upped the stakes by allowing the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state&nbsp;receiving backing from nuclear powers.

(With inputs from agencies)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning: without continued US military aid, Ukraine's ability to withstand Russia's ongoing invasion is at grave risk.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning: without continued US military aid, Ukraine's ability to withstand Russia's ongoing invasion is at grave risk. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday (Nov 19), Zelensky admitted, "If they cut (the aid), we will — I think we will lose". "We will fight. We have our production, but it's not enough to prevail. And I think it's not enough to survive," he added. The President of the war-torn nation also highlighted the critical importance of US-Ukraine unity, describing it as the foundation of Ukraine's resilience. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states Describing the "unity" between Ukraine and the United States as "most important," he once again praised Trump. Zelensky said that the incoming US president could influence Russian President Vladimir Putin "because he is much more stronger than Putin." He said that the Russian president "can be willing and end this war, but it also depends on the United States of America much more. Putin is weaker than the United States of America." Previously, he said that Russia's war against his country would "end sooner" once Donald Trump assumes office as the President of the United States. US-Ukraine alliance faces uncertainty Since the beginning of Russia's "special military operation" in February 2022, the US has been an important ally for Kyiv, with the current Biden administration channelling billions in military and humanitarian aid to bolster Ukraine's defences. However, the impending inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump has introduced an element of uncertainty into the mix. Also read | Zelensky urges allies to 'push Russia harder' as war crosses 1000th day, warns Putin will not stop on his own Trump has been vocal throughout his campaign and before about his scepticism of US funnelling billions into supporting Kyiv. The Republican leader has repeatedly referred to the assistance as a drain on American resources and has pledged to end the war swiftly—but has provided few details about his plan to do so. The debate over US involvement in the Ukraine War has recently intensified with President Joe Biden's approval for Ukraine to use long-range US missiles for strikes within Russian territory. The move, while celebrated by Kyiv, has been criticised by Trump's allies, who accused the incumbent president of a dangerous escalation. Meanwhile, after Biden's approval, Russia has upped the stakes by allowing the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state receiving backing from nuclear powers. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia-Ukraine war | Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid

Russia warned on Tuesday that it would respond accordingly after Ukraine fired long-range US missiles into Russian territory for the first time, and this as President Vladimir Putin issued a nuclear threat on the thousandth day of the war by lowering the threshold for using such weapons.

Russia-Ukraine War: Moscow Vows Response After Kyiv Fires ATACMS

The conflict in Ukraine reaches a dangerous new chapter. American weapons are now striking Russian soil. The Biden administration's quiet approval marks a dramatic shift in policy, with ripple effects across the geopolitical landscape.

Russia-Ukraine War: Russia Accuses West of Provocation

Russia has warned that Ukraine's recent use of ATACMS missiles marks a "new phase" in the ongoing war. The missile strike, which targeted Russian positions, is seen as a significant escalation in the conflict, with Russia signaling potential intensified military responses.

Russia-Ukraine War: Russia Warns Ukraine's ATACMS Attack Mark 'New Phase' Of War

Russia-Ukraine War: The Unsettling Reality of Escalation

Russia-Ukraine War: Russia Says, 'Ukraine Could Not Have Fired ATACMS Without US Help'

Russia-Ukraine War: West Maintains Strategic Silence on Escalation

Russia-Ukraine War: Why is the West Tight-Lipped About ATACMS?

Italy, Spain, and Greece on Wednesday (Nov. 20) shut down their embassies in Kyiv following a similar move by the US earlier in the day.&nbsp;The US embassy had warned&nbsp;of a potential significant air attack, citing "specific information".

Meanwhile, the Kremlin has&nbsp;announced that a “freeze” of the conflict along the existing frontlines is not acceptable to Moscow, an indication that Russia was willing to continue the war as Ukraine continues to occupy parts of its Kursk Oblast.

During a press conference, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also accused the Joe Biden administration in the US of adding fuel to the fire, saying Washington, DC, was doing everything possible to continue the war.

"If you look at the trends of the outgoing US administration, they are fully committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and are doing everything they can to do so," he said.

Speaking of US approval to Ukraine for using long-range missiles for strikes inside Russia, Peskov said Russia was not alerted beforehand by Western officials.

<h2>Biden administration steps up weapons delivery to Ukraine</h2>

Earlier, it was reported that Biden has authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the land mines are described as "nonpersistent", which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiusLWL3-qJAxXfyqACHTv2GRMQxfQBKAB6BAgKEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiusLWL3-qJAxXfyqACHTv2GRMQxfQBKAB6BAgKEAE">Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report</a>

The US has, however, sought a promise from Kyiv that the landmines will only be used within Ukrainian territories.

<h2>Moscow denies role in Baltic sea cable sabotage</h2>

The Kremlin also rubbished allegations that Russia was behind the cutting of telecommunications cables running under the Baltic Sea. One undersea cable was cut between Lithuania and Sweden on Sunday (Nov. 17) morning, prompting European officials to raise concerns over alleged Russian hybrid warfare. Another cable linking Finland and Germany was also disrupted, according to telecommunication companies.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwiusLWL3-qJAxXfyqACHTv2GRMQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/world/1000-days-of-russia-and-ukraine-war-inside-defence-revolution-as-drones-take-over-the-battlefield-777063" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/world/1000-days-of-russia-and-ukraine-war-inside-defence-revolution-as-drones-take-over-the-battlefield-777063&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiusLWL3-qJAxXfyqACHTv2GRMQxfQBKAB6BAgOEAE">1,000 days of Russia and Ukraine war: Inside defence revolution as drones take over the battlefield</a>

"It's quite absurd to keep blaming Russia for everything without any grounds. It is laughable in the context of the lack of any reaction to Ukraine's sabotage activities in the Baltic Sea," Peskov said.

(With inputs from agencies)

Italy, Spain, and Greece on Wednesday (Nov. 20) shut down their embassies in Kyiv following a similar move by the US earlier in the day. The US embassy had warned of a potential significant air attack, citing "specific information".

Italy, Spain, and Greece on Wednesday (Nov. 20) shut down their embassies in Kyiv following a similar move by the US earlier in the day. The US embassy had warned of a potential significant air attack, citing "specific information". Meanwhile, the Kremlin has announced that a “freeze” of the conflict along the existing frontlines is not acceptable to Moscow, an indication that Russia was willing to continue the war as Ukraine continues to occupy parts of its Kursk Oblast. During a press conference, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also accused the Joe Biden administration in the US of adding fuel to the fire, saying Washington, DC, was doing everything possible to continue the war. "If you look at the trends of the outgoing US administration, they are fully committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and are doing everything they can to do so," he said. Speaking of US approval to Ukraine for using long-range missiles for strikes inside Russia, Peskov said Russia was not alerted beforehand by Western officials. Biden administration steps up weapons delivery to Ukraine Earlier, it was reported that Biden has authorised the transfer of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine. As per a Washington Post report citing unnamed US officials, the land mines are described as "nonpersistent", which means they are designed to self-destruct or deactivate within a set timeframe to minimise risks to civilians. Also read: Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report The US has, however, sought a promise from Kyiv that the landmines will only be used within Ukrainian territories. Moscow denies role in Baltic sea cable sabotage The Kremlin also rubbished allegations that Russia was behind the cutting of telecommunications cables running under the Baltic Sea. One undersea cable was cut between Lithuania and Sweden on Sunday (Nov. 17) morning, prompting European officials to raise concerns over alleged Russian hybrid warfare. Another cable linking Finland and Germany was also disrupted, according to telecommunication companies. Also read: 1,000 days of Russia and Ukraine war: Inside defence revolution as drones take over the battlefield "It's quite absurd to keep blaming Russia for everything without any grounds. It is laughable in the context of the lack of any reaction to Ukraine's sabotage activities in the Baltic Sea," Peskov said. (With inputs from agencies)

Italy, Spain, Greece close embassies in Kyiv after US; Kremlin rejects ‘freeze’ on Ukraine war

Russia warned that it would respond accordingly after Ukraine fired long-range US missiles into Russian territory for the first time, and as President Vladimir Putin issued a nuclear threat on the thousandth day of the war by lowering the threshold for using such weapons.

Russia-Ukraine War: Moscow Vows Response After Kyiv Fires ATACMS Missiles

Russia’s nuclear doctrine is a set of guidelines that the country follows regarding when and how it might use nuclear weapons. These rules help outline the circumstances under which Moscow would consider using its nuclear arsenal. The doctrine says Russia can use its large nuclear weapons stockpile if it faces any aggression that seriously threatens the country’s sovereignty or territorial integrity.&nbsp;

On November 19, a new open-ended guideline—a rule or guideline without a fixed end date or clear limitations on its scope—was introduced, following an update approved by President Vladimir Putin just two days after the United States declared it would ease restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons. The earlier version of the doctrine set much stricter conditions for nuclear retaliation, allowing it only if Russia’s survival was at risk.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545">Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report</a>

The revision, clearly referring to Ukraine and its Western allies, stated that an attack using conventional missiles, drones, or aircraft by a non-nuclear country, backed by a nuclear-armed nation, could justify a nuclear response. The update also extends Russia’s nuclear protection to Belarus, meaning Belarus will now be defended under Russia’s nuclear policies.&nbsp;

For quite some time, hardliners in Moscow have been pushing President Putin to consider lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Their argument is that Russia should respond more aggressively to the military and financial assistance Ukraine is receiving from the West. This support includes advanced weapons, such as Storm Shadow missiles from Britain and France, which Ukraine has used to strike important Russian targets, such as the Black Sea fleet’s headquarters in Crimea, an area Russia currently occupies.&nbsp;

The situation seemed to escalate when President Joe Biden, after months of hesitation, finally approved the use of American ATACMS missiles by Ukraine. These missiles allow Ukraine to target areas deep inside Russian territory. In response, Putin warned that this decision would mean NATO is essentially ‘at war’ with Russia.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-us-embassy-in-kyiv-shuts-down-amid-looming-airstrike-threat-777618">Russia-Ukraine war: US embassy in Kyiv shuts down amid looming airstrike threat</a>

After many months of warnings that were not backed up with real action, Russia’s new strategy could be seen as another empty threat by Western leaders. Over time, the West has pushed the limits set by Putin and found they could cross these ‘red lines’ without facing serious repercussions. This makes it seem Russia’s threats may not be as strong as they first appeared.&nbsp;

On the first day of the war, Putin warned that any interference would bring consequences “like nothing you’ve ever seen before”. However, since then, the West has provided Ukraine with over $100 billion in aid and significantly boosted its military support.&nbsp;

Despite this, the move marks a major change in Russia’s nuclear policy. It now leaves more room for interpretation when deciding what counts as a threat to the country’s ‘sovereignty or territorial integrity’. Putin did not see Ukraine’s attack on the Kursk region as a serious threat to Russia’s survival or his leadership. However, he seems to view the ATACMS missile strikes on Russian territory as a much bigger concern that could pose a significant risk to the country or his rule.&nbsp;

<h2>Higher Risk of Russia Using N-Weapons?&nbsp;</h2>

Russia has announced that it has moved some of its nuclear missiles to Belarus and strengthened its already large military forces in Kaliningrad, a small Russian region located between Poland and Lithuania in the Baltic area. In response, neighbouring Poland said it was ready to host NATO nuclear weapons. Putin also stated that Russia’s updated nuclear policy would now cover Belarus, its closest ally, under its nuclear protection.&nbsp;

Putin has claimed that Russia’s nuclear weapons are more advanced than those of the US and stressed that ‘weapons are made to be used’. Putin has also warned that, if NATO troops are sent to Ukraine, it could lead to a nuclear war. But, so far, this situation has not arisen.&nbsp;

In September, Russia’s nuclear forces faced a setback when an intercontinental ballistic missile, which Putin had once described as unstoppable, exploded in its silo during a test launch, creating a crater about 60 metres wide at the missile’s launch silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia. The RS-28 Sarmat, called Satan II in the West, was one of the ‘super-weapons’ Putin had introduced in 2018.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-amid-shifting-political-winds-zelensky-warns-ukraine-will-lose-without-us-aid-777517">Russia-Ukraine war | Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid</a>

Although President Biden had previously stated that Russia’s nuclear threats were serious, Putin’s repeated warnings without any follow-through have lessened the impact of his words. NATO has consistently stated that there is no evidence showing Russia is getting ready to use its nuclear weapons. Warnings of a nuclear war from Moscow officials, especially from Dmitry Medvedev—Russia’s former prime minister and president, now deputy head of the national security council—are mostly seen by the West as attempts to discourage NATO from supporting Ukraine, rather than actual serious threats.&nbsp;

Still, Washington remains cautious about the risk of escalation. In August, John Kirby, the White House National Security Adviser, reportedly said they were always concerned about the possibility that the conflict in Ukraine could escalate and spread across Europe.&nbsp;

In November, reports revealed that former British prime minister Liz Truss was deeply worried in October 2022 that Putin may launch a nuclear attack. In the final days of her time as prime minister, officials were even checking weather maps and preparing for potential radiation cases in the UK. One of the toughest challenges for Western governments is trying to figure out what Putin is thinking.&nbsp;

In recent years, talk about nuclear weapons has become so common in Russia that it may make it easier, mentally, for them to consider actually using them. There are also worries about Putin’s mental state. Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin adviser who passed away last year, said after the Ukraine war began that Putin’s mindset had worsened during his time in power. Pavlovsky said Putin was now “reacting to the pictures in his own head”.&nbsp;

<h2>Why Putin May Consider Using N-Weapons&nbsp;</h2>

Faced with the possibility of a long, drawn-out war, Putin, who has full control over Russia’s large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, may decide that only a powerful strike using the most dangerous weapon he has could prevent Russia from facing defeat and disgrace. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller nuclear bombs designed for use on battlefields to target specific military objectives, rather than destroying large areas, such as cities, or causing widespread devastation.&nbsp;

In Putin’s view, a serious threat to his rule, rather than to Russia as a whole, could be enough for him to consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine or the West. Putin will celebrate 25 years in power on New Year’s Eve, and his supporters have depicted him as the symbol of Russia, itself. According to media reports, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the Russian parliament, went on record to say that, if Putin exists, Russia exists. No Putin, no Russia!&nbsp;

From a Western perspective, it would not make much sense for Russia to use nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons, which have a shorter range and less power, would cause massive destruction but would not necessarily give Putin a quick victory. Using strategic nuclear weapons, which can completely destroy entire cities, would almost definitely trigger a huge response from the West and could even lead to a Third World War.&nbsp;

Putin may not care about the lives of Ukrainian civilians, but would he really be willing to doom his own young children—whose existence was revealed this month—to spending years in a nuclear bunker deep in Siberia? For Putin, using nuclear weapons could be his way of challenging the West. His message would, possibly, be: “Because you keep supplying Kyiv with more advanced weapons to attack Russian forces, I have no other option.”&nbsp;

Leaked military documents obtained by the Financial Times in February showed Russia had prepared plans to use tactical nuclear weapons early in a conflict with a major power. This is part of a strategy aimed at creating fear and pressure. The documents described possible situations where Russia would use nuclear strikes in response to an invasion. They also mentioned other goals, such as preventing other countries from using force, stopping military conflicts from getting worse, and making Russia’s navy stronger.&nbsp;

The collection of 29 secret documents, created between 2008 and 2014, when Putin was either president or prime minister, is still believed to be relevant to Russia’s current military strategy. These files suggest a much lower threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons than Russian officials have publicly acknowledged.&nbsp;

<h2>What Prevents the Use of Tactical N-Weapons?&nbsp;</h2>

There are two main reasons: the first is China. President Xi has publicly declared and, possibly, privately warned Putin that nuclear weapons should never be used. China is a key strategic partner for Russia and their alliance has strengthened significantly since the start of the war in Ukraine. The Chinese leader has never criticized his Russian counterpart for the invasion of Ukraine. However, despite their growing partnership, China has not provided military assistance to Russia so far.&nbsp;

He is also working to present himself as a peacemaker, aiming to negotiate a solution that could end the war through diplomacy. This effort not only seeks to resolve the conflict, but also helps him enhance his image and influence on the international stage. Putin understands that, if he decides to launch a nuclear attack—even a small one—it could seriously harm, or even completely ruin, his partnership with China.&nbsp;

Interestingly, the secret documents mentioned earlier show that Moscow harbours a strong mistrust of China. They even outline possible scenarios where Russia may use nuclear weapons if China were to invade. Although the two countries have grown into strong allies since those plans were made, with China’s financial backing helping Russia cope with Western sanctions after the Ukraine war, Russia has still been strengthening its defences in the east.&nbsp;

In a military simulation, Russia planned how it might respond to a potential attack by China. In this scenario, Russia was referred to as the ‘Northern Federation’, while China was called ‘the South’. The exercise imagined a situation where China launched an invasion and prepared to send a second wave of troops. To stop this, Russia considered the use of a small, tactical nuclear strike.&nbsp;

It is important to note that this was purely a theoretical exercise and not an actual event. However, it highlights how nations, even allies, sometimes prepare for worst-case scenarios to safeguard their interests. The document states the commander-in-chief has ordered the use of nuclear weapons if the enemy sends in additional troops and ‘the South’ poses a serious threat of advancing further towards the main target.&nbsp;

The second reason is how the US and NATO may react. Putin may convince himself that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine will not trigger a nuclear or military response from the West. This is because Ukraine is not a NATO member and is not protected under Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, which guarantees mutual defence for its members. This means that, if any member of NATO is attacked, it is treated as an attack on the entire alliance.&nbsp;

The US has warned that, if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would lead to ‘catastrophic consequences’ for Russia. The exact nature of these consequences has not been clearly explained. However, it raises the question of whether it could result in a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Before considering the use of nuclear weapons, Putin must carefully think about this potential risk.&nbsp;

<h2>Has there been any change?&nbsp;</h2>

Easing restrictions on the use of ATACMS is the latest step in a series of increasing military support from Western countries. The weapons supplied by the US-led coalition of 50 countries have significantly boosted Ukraine’s military strength and firepower. American F-16 fighter jets are already in action, and Ukraine has used advanced American missiles to target Putin’s forces, including Russian troops gathered near border areas.&nbsp;

Donald Trump’s election in the US may have marked the end of the seemingly endless supply of weapons. He has promised to end the war within 24 hours of assuming office. Some believe he may pressure Zelensky into negotiations by threatening to stop all US aid. Trump has often criticized NATO, stating he would allow Russia to act freely against member-countries that fail to meet their spending commitments.&nbsp;

Last year, Putin took a significant step that seemed to be preparation for a possible nuclear attack by sending the first set of tactical nuclear systems to Belarus, a neighbouring country allied with Russia. This marked the first time since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 that Moscow had stationed nuclear missiles outside its borders.&nbsp;

<h2>Could Russia Deploy N-Weapons in Space?&nbsp;</h2>

As attention moves away from the immediate threat of using nuclear weapons on the battlefield, there are rising concerns that Putin may already be thinking about placing a nuclear device in Earth’s orbit. Putin has a strong fascination with advanced weapons, which is clear from his open support for hypersonic missiles, as well as nuclear-powered cruise missiles and torpedoes that are said to have unlimited range.&nbsp;

Putting nuclear devices into orbit—in clear violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which Russia has signed—possibly to target America’s satellite systems, would showcase Russia’s increasing military aggression and turn space into a new area of conflict. This would push the US to create and deploy new defence systems in space, further escalating the arms race between the major powers and making it even more dangerous.&nbsp;

Countries, such as Russia, China, India, North Korea and Iran, are investing heavily in space technology, particularly in weapons that can target satellites. This poses a serious risk to America’s global satellite communication network, which is essential for the US military’s navigation, precision attacks and overall command and control systems.&nbsp;

<h2>What Are Russia’s Current N-Capabilities?&nbsp;</h2>

Russia still has a powerful nuclear arsenal, even though it has signed several arms control treaties since the Cold War ended. The Federation of American Scientists says Russia’s N-weapons stockpile, the world’s largest, comprises 5,580 warheads. Some of these are tactical nuclear weapons meant for use on the battlefield, while others are built to wipe out entire cities.&nbsp;

In 2023, Putin announced that Russia would withdraw from its last nuclear arms control agreement with the US, the New Start treaty, which was the last arms control agreement between Moscow and Washington. It was designed to limit the number of long-range nuclear missiles, warheads and launch systems that both countries could have, aiming to reduce the risk of a nuclear arms race. Earlier, President Trump had withdrawn from a treaty on intermediate-range weapons, claiming Russia had violated its terms.&nbsp;

By stepping away from this agreement, Russia is no longer obligated to follow these restrictions. This decision could lead to an increase in nuclear weapons and heighten tensions between the two nations, raising concerns about global security and stability. The move marks a significant shift in efforts to control nuclear arms and maintain balance between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.&nbsp;

Putin’s decision to suspend Russia’s participation in the treaty does not mean Russia cannot rejoin it before it expires in 2026. However, the Kremlin has made it clear that it will not discuss a new nuclear agreement as long as NATO continues to supply weapons to Ukraine.&nbsp;

Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine is a set of guidelines that the country follows regarding when and how it might use nuclear weapons. These rules help outline the circumstances under which Moscow would consider using its nuclear arsenal.

Russia’s nuclear doctrine is a set of guidelines that the country follows regarding when and how it might use nuclear weapons. These rules help outline the circumstances under which Moscow would consider using its nuclear arsenal. The doctrine says Russia can use its large nuclear weapons stockpile if it faces any aggression that seriously threatens the country’s sovereignty or territorial integrity. On November 19, a new open-ended guideline—a rule or guideline without a fixed end date or clear limitations on its scope—was introduced, following an update approved by President Vladimir Putin just two days after the United States declared it would ease restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons. The earlier version of the doctrine set much stricter conditions for nuclear retaliation, allowing it only if Russia’s survival was at risk. Also read | Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report The revision, clearly referring to Ukraine and its Western allies, stated that an attack using conventional missiles, drones, or aircraft by a non-nuclear country, backed by a nuclear-armed nation, could justify a nuclear response. The update also extends Russia’s nuclear protection to Belarus, meaning Belarus will now be defended under Russia’s nuclear policies. For quite some time, hardliners in Moscow have been pushing President Putin to consider lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons. Their argument is that Russia should respond more aggressively to the military and financial assistance Ukraine is receiving from the West. This support includes advanced weapons, such as Storm Shadow missiles from Britain and France, which Ukraine has used to strike important Russian targets, such as the Black Sea fleet’s headquarters in Crimea, an area Russia currently occupies. The situation seemed to escalate when President Joe Biden, after months of hesitation, finally approved the use of American ATACMS missiles by Ukraine. These missiles allow Ukraine to target areas deep inside Russian territory. In response, Putin warned that this decision would mean NATO is essentially ‘at war’ with Russia. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: US embassy in Kyiv shuts down amid looming airstrike threat After many months of warnings that were not backed up with real action, Russia’s new strategy could be seen as another empty threat by Western leaders. Over time, the West has pushed the limits set by Putin and found they could cross these ‘red lines’ without facing serious repercussions. This makes it seem Russia’s threats may not be as strong as they first appeared. On the first day of the war, Putin warned that any interference would bring consequences “like nothing you’ve ever seen before”. However, since then, the West has provided Ukraine with over $100 billion in aid and significantly boosted its military support. Despite this, the move marks a major change in Russia’s nuclear policy. It now leaves more room for interpretation when deciding what counts as a threat to the country’s ‘sovereignty or territorial integrity’. Putin did not see Ukraine’s attack on the Kursk region as a serious threat to Russia’s survival or his leadership. However, he seems to view the ATACMS missile strikes on Russian territory as a much bigger concern that could pose a significant risk to the country or his rule. Higher Risk of Russia Using N-Weapons? Russia has announced that it has moved some of its nuclear missiles to Belarus and strengthened its already large military forces in Kaliningrad, a small Russian region located between Poland and Lithuania in the Baltic area. In response, neighbouring Poland said it was ready to host NATO nuclear weapons. Putin also stated that Russia’s updated nuclear policy would now cover Belarus, its closest ally, under its nuclear protection. Putin has claimed that Russia’s nuclear weapons are more advanced than those of the US and stressed that ‘weapons are made to be used’. Putin has also warned that, if NATO troops are sent to Ukraine, it could lead to a nuclear war. But, so far, this situation has not arisen. In September, Russia’s nuclear forces faced a setback when an intercontinental ballistic missile, which Putin had once described as unstoppable, exploded in its silo during a test launch, creating a crater about 60 metres wide at the missile’s launch silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia. The RS-28 Sarmat, called Satan II in the West, was one of the ‘super-weapons’ Putin had introduced in 2018. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war | Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid Although President Biden had previously stated that Russia’s nuclear threats were serious, Putin’s repeated warnings without any follow-through have lessened the impact of his words. NATO has consistently stated that there is no evidence showing Russia is getting ready to use its nuclear weapons. Warnings of a nuclear war from Moscow officials, especially from Dmitry Medvedev—Russia’s former prime minister and president, now deputy head of the national security council—are mostly seen by the West as attempts to discourage NATO from supporting Ukraine, rather than actual serious threats. Still, Washington remains cautious about the risk of escalation. In August, John Kirby, the White House National Security Adviser, reportedly said they were always concerned about the possibility that the conflict in Ukraine could escalate and spread across Europe. In November, reports revealed that former British prime minister Liz Truss was deeply worried in October 2022 that Putin may launch a nuclear attack. In the final days of her time as prime minister, officials were even checking weather maps and preparing for potential radiation cases in the UK. One of the toughest challenges for Western governments is trying to figure out what Putin is thinking. In recent years, talk about nuclear weapons has become so common in Russia that it may make it easier, mentally, for them to consider actually using them. There are also worries about Putin’s mental state. Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin adviser who passed away last year, said after the Ukraine war began that Putin’s mindset had worsened during his time in power. Pavlovsky said Putin was now “reacting to the pictures in his own head”. Why Putin May Consider Using N-Weapons Faced with the possibility of a long, drawn-out war, Putin, who has full control over Russia’s large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, may decide that only a powerful strike using the most dangerous weapon he has could prevent Russia from facing defeat and disgrace. Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller nuclear bombs designed for use on battlefields to target specific military objectives, rather than destroying large areas, such as cities, or causing widespread devastation. In Putin’s view, a serious threat to his rule, rather than to Russia as a whole, could be enough for him to consider using nuclear weapons against Ukraine or the West. Putin will celebrate 25 years in power on New Year’s Eve, and his supporters have depicted him as the symbol of Russia, itself. According to media reports, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the Russian parliament, went on record to say that, if Putin exists, Russia exists. No Putin, no Russia! From a Western perspective, it would not make much sense for Russia to use nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons, which have a shorter range and less power, would cause massive destruction but would not necessarily give Putin a quick victory. Using strategic nuclear weapons, which can completely destroy entire cities, would almost definitely trigger a huge response from the West and could even lead to a Third World War. Putin may not care about the lives of Ukrainian civilians, but would he really be willing to doom his own young children—whose existence was revealed this month—to spending years in a nuclear bunker deep in Siberia? For Putin, using nuclear weapons could be his way of challenging the West. His message would, possibly, be: “Because you keep supplying Kyiv with more advanced weapons to attack Russian forces, I have no other option.” Leaked military documents obtained by the Financial Times in February showed Russia had prepared plans to use tactical nuclear weapons early in a conflict with a major power. This is part of a strategy aimed at creating fear and pressure. The documents described possible situations where Russia would use nuclear strikes in response to an invasion. They also mentioned other goals, such as preventing other countries from using force, stopping military conflicts from getting worse, and making Russia’s navy stronger. The collection of 29 secret documents, created between 2008 and 2014, when Putin was either president or prime minister, is still believed to be relevant to Russia’s current military strategy. These files suggest a much lower threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons than Russian officials have publicly acknowledged. What Prevents the Use of Tactical N-Weapons? There are two main reasons: the first is China. President Xi has publicly declared and, possibly, privately warned Putin that nuclear weapons should never be used. China is a key strategic partner for Russia and their alliance has strengthened significantly since the start of the war in Ukraine. The Chinese leader has never criticized his Russian counterpart for the invasion of Ukraine. However, despite their growing partnership, China has not provided military assistance to Russia so far. He is also working to present himself as a peacemaker, aiming to negotiate a solution that could end the war through diplomacy. This effort not only seeks to resolve the conflict, but also helps him enhance his image and influence on the international stage. Putin understands that, if he decides to launch a nuclear attack—even a small one—it could seriously harm, or even completely ruin, his partnership with China. Interestingly, the secret documents mentioned earlier show that Moscow harbours a strong mistrust of China. They even outline possible scenarios where Russia may use nuclear weapons if China were to invade. Although the two countries have grown into strong allies since those plans were made, with China’s financial backing helping Russia cope with Western sanctions after the Ukraine war, Russia has still been strengthening its defences in the east. In a military simulation, Russia planned how it might respond to a potential attack by China. In this scenario, Russia was referred to as the ‘Northern Federation’, while China was called ‘the South’. The exercise imagined a situation where China launched an invasion and prepared to send a second wave of troops. To stop this, Russia considered the use of a small, tactical nuclear strike. It is important to note that this was purely a theoretical exercise and not an actual event. However, it highlights how nations, even allies, sometimes prepare for worst-case scenarios to safeguard their interests. The document states the commander-in-chief has ordered the use of nuclear weapons if the enemy sends in additional troops and ‘the South’ poses a serious threat of advancing further towards the main target. The second reason is how the US and NATO may react. Putin may convince himself that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine will not trigger a nuclear or military response from the West. This is because Ukraine is not a NATO member and is not protected under Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, which guarantees mutual defence for its members. This means that, if any member of NATO is attacked, it is treated as an attack on the entire alliance. The US has warned that, if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would lead to ‘catastrophic consequences’ for Russia. The exact nature of these consequences has not been clearly explained. However, it raises the question of whether it could result in a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Before considering the use of nuclear weapons, Putin must carefully think about this potential risk. Has there been any change? Easing restrictions on the use of ATACMS is the latest step in a series of increasing military support from Western countries. The weapons supplied by the US-led coalition of 50 countries have significantly boosted Ukraine’s military strength and firepower. American F-16 fighter jets are already in action, and Ukraine has used advanced American missiles to target Putin’s forces, including Russian troops gathered near border areas. Donald Trump’s election in the US may have marked the end of the seemingly endless supply of weapons. He has promised to end the war within 24 hours of assuming office. Some believe he may pressure Zelensky into negotiations by threatening to stop all US aid. Trump has often criticized NATO, stating he would allow Russia to act freely against member-countries that fail to meet their spending commitments. Last year, Putin took a significant step that seemed to be preparation for a possible nuclear attack by sending the first set of tactical nuclear systems to Belarus, a neighbouring country allied with Russia. This marked the first time since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 that Moscow had stationed nuclear missiles outside its borders. Could Russia Deploy N-Weapons in Space? As attention moves away from the immediate threat of using nuclear weapons on the battlefield, there are rising concerns that Putin may already be thinking about placing a nuclear device in Earth’s orbit. Putin has a strong fascination with advanced weapons, which is clear from his open support for hypersonic missiles, as well as nuclear-powered cruise missiles and torpedoes that are said to have unlimited range. Putting nuclear devices into orbit—in clear violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which Russia has signed—possibly to target America’s satellite systems, would showcase Russia’s increasing military aggression and turn space into a new area of conflict. This would push the US to create and deploy new defence systems in space, further escalating the arms race between the major powers and making it even more dangerous. Countries, such as Russia, China, India, North Korea and Iran, are investing heavily in space technology, particularly in weapons that can target satellites. This poses a serious risk to America’s global satellite communication network, which is essential for the US military’s navigation, precision attacks and overall command and control systems. What Are Russia’s Current N-Capabilities? Russia still has a powerful nuclear arsenal, even though it has signed several arms control treaties since the Cold War ended. The Federation of American Scientists says Russia’s N-weapons stockpile, the world’s largest, comprises 5,580 warheads. Some of these are tactical nuclear weapons meant for use on the battlefield, while others are built to wipe out entire cities. In 2023, Putin announced that Russia would withdraw from its last nuclear arms control agreement with the US, the New Start treaty, which was the last arms control agreement between Moscow and Washington. It was designed to limit the number of long-range nuclear missiles, warheads and launch systems that both countries could have, aiming to reduce the risk of a nuclear arms race. Earlier, President Trump had withdrawn from a treaty on intermediate-range weapons, claiming Russia had violated its terms. By stepping away from this agreement, Russia is no longer obligated to follow these restrictions. This decision could lead to an increase in nuclear weapons and heighten tensions between the two nations, raising concerns about global security and stability. The move marks a significant shift in efforts to control nuclear arms and maintain balance between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. Putin’s decision to suspend Russia’s participation in the treaty does not mean Russia cannot rejoin it before it expires in 2026. However, the Kremlin has made it clear that it will not discuss a new nuclear agreement as long as NATO continues to supply weapons to Ukraine. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Will Russia resort to using Nuclear weapons? An analysis of Putin's potential choices

The US Embassy in Kyiv on Wednesday (Nov 20) announced its closure, citing intelligence about a significant and imminent airstrike. In a statement, the embassy instructed staff to shelter in place and urged US citizens to prepare for immediate action if air raid alarms sound.&nbsp;

"The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv has received specific information of a potential significant air attack on November 20," said the US&nbsp;Embassy in Kyiv on its website.

"Out of an abundance of caution, the embassy will be closed, and embassy employees are being instructed to shelter in place."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545">Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report</a>

"The US Embassy recommends US citizens be prepared to immediately shelter in the event an air alert is announced," it added.

This warning comes after Ukraine deployed US-supplied ATACMS missiles, targeting Russian territory. In an announcement that coincided with&nbsp;the 1000th day of the Ukraine war,&nbsp;Washington this week said it had cleared a long-standing Ukrainian request — for Ukraine to use ATACMS against military targets inside Russia.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-amid-shifting-political-winds-zelensky-warns-ukraine-will-lose-without-us-aid-777517" target="_blank">Russia-Ukraine war:&nbsp;Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid</a>

<h2>Russia warns it will respond</h2>

After Ukraine fired longer-range US missiles — a first in the nearly three-year war&nbsp;—&nbsp;Russia on Tuesday (Nov 19) had warned&nbsp;that it would respond.

Speaking at a&nbsp;press conference at the G20 summit in Brazil,&nbsp;Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Ukraine's strike on Russia's Bryansk region, which used ATACMS missiles (a reference to the US-supplied Army Tactical Missile System)&nbsp;showed Western countries wanted to "escalate" the conflict.

"We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia. And we will react accordingly," warned Lavrov.

Washington this week said it had cleared Ukraine to use ATACMS against military targets inside Russia -- a long-standing Ukrainian request.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Embassy in Kyiv on Wednesday (Nov 20) announced its closure, citing intelligence about a significant and imminent airstrike. In a statement, the embassy instructed staff to shelter in place and urged US citizens to prepare for immediate action if air raid alarms sound.

The US Embassy in Kyiv on Wednesday (Nov 20) announced its closure, citing intelligence about a significant and imminent airstrike. In a statement, the embassy instructed staff to shelter in place and urged US citizens to prepare for immediate action if air raid alarms sound. "The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv has received specific information of a potential significant air attack on November 20," said the US Embassy in Kyiv on its website. "Out of an abundance of caution, the embassy will be closed, and embassy employees are being instructed to shelter in place." Also read | Biden approves anti-personnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report "The US Embassy recommends US citizens be prepared to immediately shelter in the event an air alert is announced," it added. This warning comes after Ukraine deployed US-supplied ATACMS missiles, targeting Russian territory. In an announcement that coincided with the 1000th day of the Ukraine war, Washington this week said it had cleared a long-standing Ukrainian request — for Ukraine to use ATACMS against military targets inside Russia. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Amid shifting political winds Zelensky warns Ukraine 'will lose' without US aid Russia warns it will respond After Ukraine fired longer-range US missiles — a first in the nearly three-year war — Russia on Tuesday (Nov 19) had warned that it would respond. Speaking at a press conference at the G20 summit in Brazil, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that Ukraine's strike on Russia's Bryansk region, which used ATACMS missiles (a reference to the US-supplied Army Tactical Missile System) showed Western countries wanted to "escalate" the conflict. "We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia. And we will react accordingly," warned Lavrov. Washington this week said it had cleared Ukraine to use ATACMS against military targets inside Russia -- a long-standing Ukrainian request. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia-Ukraine war: US embassy in Kyiv shuts down amid looming airstrike threat

The war in Ukraine after 1000 days is edging ever closer to a potentially catastrophic escalation as recent decisions from both the United States and Russia highlight the increasing risks of a broader conflict. US&nbsp;President Joe Biden has reportedly approved the use of US-supplied long-range missiles to Ukraine, despite significant concerns that this could provoke a harsh reaction from Russia. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine, signalling a more aggressive posture in the event of a conventional attack by non-nuclear nation supported by nuclear country. Ukraine was quick to encash Biden’s nod by targeting the Bryans (Russia) by firing six ATACM missiles, Russia is yet to respond, which brings the war to a crucial moment that could reshape the course of international geopolitical tensions in the coming months.&nbsp;

<h2>Biden’s Decision: A Risky Gamble &nbsp;</h2>

President Biden’s authorisation to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, to target Russian infrastructure has sparked heated debates among military analysts. While the official word from the White House and Pentagon remains unconfirmed, U.S. media reports suggest that Biden has given the green light for these weapons to be used in the ongoing conflict. The logic being given is the involvement of North Korean troops to support Russia was an escalation, which demanded US to concede to Ukrainian demand of such permission to boost its firepower and sagging morale. It is believed that firing these weapons requires expertise and guidance system of USA, which Russians presume as direct involvement of NATO in kinetic, contact war demanding appropriate response.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-approves-antipersonnel-land-mines-for-ukraine-amid-escalating-conflict-with-russia-report-777545">Biden approves antipersonnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report</a>

Some analysts highlighted the potential for this move to escalate the conflict, warning that "Biden has lost the election and has nothing more to lose from the decision, which only furthers the cause of fighting Russia till the last Ukrainian standing" to help out its deep state/arms lobby and hoping to save an embarrassment for Democrats if Ukrainian defences crumble before Trumps Presidency. With Ukraine’s use of these missiles to strike Russian territory now, a significant Russian military response can be expected, which can create conditions of involving the U.S. directly in hostilities with Russia. &nbsp;

Politically, domestically, Biden's decision could also be viewed as an effort to entangle future U.S. administration under President elect Donald Trump in war, derailing his election promise of ending it. Interestingly neither White House nor Pentagon, nor President Zelensky have openly declared the decision, perhaps to maintain deniability to tone down Russian retaliation.&nbsp;

Since Ukraine is likely to bear the brunt of any Russian retaliation resulting from such decisions, some NATO nations that support Ukraine believe they have little to lose militarily if Ukraine escalates its conflict with Russia as long as their soldiers are not engaged in combat and do not receive body bags. They believe that in order to keep Zelensky's defences from collapsing until early 2025 or to put him in a position where he can engage in meaningful discussions, it is crucial to provide him with continuous military and financial support as well as to raise his morale. &nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-putin-approves-nuclear-strikes-on-non-nuclear-states-777334" target="_blank">Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states</a>

<h2>Miscalculations and Battlefield Realities&nbsp;</h2>

The Biden administration's decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine seems to have been driven by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's persistent demands for more advanced weaponry to push back Russian forces, however, it might be a calculated risk/miscalculation on two counts depending on Russian response.&nbsp;

First, by supplying long-range missiles with potential NATO guidance, the U.S. is effectively defying President Putin’s warnings. Earlier in ongoing war there were occasions when Putin did not follow up his threats of escalation when battle tanks and F-16 aircrafts were supplied to Ukraine; hence, Biden’s advisers feel that Putin may not follow up with nuclear options or striking some NATO target. &nbsp;

Second, the use of long-range missiles may not be a game-changer on the battlefield. While these missiles could damage Russian infrastructure, they are unlikely to alter the fundamental dynamics of the war, where Russian forces have been making steady territorial gains in the east and south of Ukraine. The use of advanced weapons, while symbolically important for Ukraine, may not be enough to reverse Russia's momentum or lead to a decisive shift in the conflict's trajectory; hence, may not provoke a violent response of the magnitude that NATO can’t handle. Ukraine is short of trained manpower to hold on to its frontline and standoff strike weapons can’t compensate for this weakness. &nbsp;

<h2>Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine: A Dangerous New Path&nbsp;</h2>

As tensions rise, President Putin has also taken steps to reinforce Russia's military posture. In a move that signals an increasing willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional aggression, Putin signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine. The decree includes several key provisions that could fundamentally alter the strategic calculus in the region.&nbsp;

Under the new doctrine, nuclear deterrence is explicitly aimed not only at individual adversary states but also at military coalitions—especially those that possess nuclear weapons. Crucially, the doctrine now considers the participation of nuclear states in supporting a non-nuclear state's aggression against Russia as grounds for considering the conflict a "joint attack." This update marks a significant shift in Russia's stance, emphasizing that any attack on Russia by a non-nuclear state—if supported by a nuclear power—could trigger a nuclear response.&nbsp;

Furthermore, the updated doctrine asserts that nuclear deterrence will be in effect at all times: in peacetime, during periods of immediate threat, and in wartime, right up until the potential use of nuclear weapons. These revisions suggest that Putin's government is willing to escalate the conflict further, with nuclear retaliation now seen as a legitimate response to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers, such as NATO. Maintaining a strong, battle-ready nuclear arsenal has been a part of Russian strategy and it has invested heavily in it. &nbsp;

<h2>The Impending Escalation&nbsp;</h2>

The risk of escalation is now clearer than ever. In the coming months, both Russia and Ukraine are likely to continue jockeying for advantage before the new year. Ukrainian forces are focused on resisting further Russian territorial advances, particularly in areas like Kursk and Donbas, where Russia has made notable gains. On the other hand, Russia is aiming to solidify its control over critical areas and create conditions that make Ukraine's NATO membership virtually impossible.&nbsp;

Russia continues to ramp up its offensive, launching missile and drone barrages targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure, cracking Ukrainian defences in intense attrition warfare. Ukraine is boosting its firepower by using U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, the most recent incident saw Ukraine firing six ATACMS missiles at the Russian Bryansk region. While five of the missiles were intercepted by Russia’s advanced S-400 and Pantsir air-defence systems, one missile was damaged and its fragments caused a fire at a military facility. This attack, while not decisive, underscores the growing risks of a broader conflict as both sides trade blows on the battlefield. &nbsp;

<h2>NATO’s Strategic Blind Spot?&nbsp;</h2>

The broader question remains: Has NATO truly thought through the long-term implications of its support for Ukraine? Apparently the alliance may not have adequately considered the ultimate goals of the conflict, particularly in terms of conflict termination and avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. The prospect of a prolonged, protracted war could endanger Europe’s stability and security in ways that have not been fully accounted for.&nbsp;

For Russia, the objectives are relatively clearer: solidifying territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, securing the Donbass region, and preventing Ukraine's NATO accession. For the West, the stakes are higher, as NATO’s involvement risks a direct clash with Russia. As both sides continue to escalate, the international community must be prepared for the possibility of even intensified war—and the potential for a nuclear confrontation that could impact the world in a catastrophic manner, that no one would like imagine.&nbsp;

As the war completes thousand days to get into the final months of 2024, the risk of escalation remains ever-present. Ukraine’s use of U.S. long-range missiles can trigger a strong Russian response, while Putin’s nuclear doctrine update has created a dangerous new path toward the potential use of nuclear weapons, reminding of Cuban missile crisis. How deeply these decisions will plunge the opposing sides further into war risking humanity, remains to be seen, but the clock is ticking, with peace remaining a distant dream.&nbsp;

Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

The war in Ukraine after 1000 days is edging ever closer to a potentially catastrophic escalation as recent decisions from both the United States and Russia highlight the increasing risks of a broader conflict.

The war in Ukraine after 1000 days is edging ever closer to a potentially catastrophic escalation as recent decisions from both the United States and Russia highlight the increasing risks of a broader conflict. US President Joe Biden has reportedly approved the use of US-supplied long-range missiles to Ukraine, despite significant concerns that this could provoke a harsh reaction from Russia. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine, signalling a more aggressive posture in the event of a conventional attack by non-nuclear nation supported by nuclear country. Ukraine was quick to encash Biden’s nod by targeting the Bryans (Russia) by firing six ATACM missiles, Russia is yet to respond, which brings the war to a crucial moment that could reshape the course of international geopolitical tensions in the coming months. Biden’s Decision: A Risky Gamble President Biden’s authorisation to supply Ukraine with long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, to target Russian infrastructure has sparked heated debates among military analysts. While the official word from the White House and Pentagon remains unconfirmed, U.S. media reports suggest that Biden has given the green light for these weapons to be used in the ongoing conflict. The logic being given is the involvement of North Korean troops to support Russia was an escalation, which demanded US to concede to Ukrainian demand of such permission to boost its firepower and sagging morale. It is believed that firing these weapons requires expertise and guidance system of USA, which Russians presume as direct involvement of NATO in kinetic, contact war demanding appropriate response. Also read | Biden approves antipersonnel land mines for Ukraine amid escalating conflict with Russia: Report Some analysts highlighted the potential for this move to escalate the conflict, warning that "Biden has lost the election and has nothing more to lose from the decision, which only furthers the cause of fighting Russia till the last Ukrainian standing" to help out its deep state/arms lobby and hoping to save an embarrassment for Democrats if Ukrainian defences crumble before Trumps Presidency. With Ukraine’s use of these missiles to strike Russian territory now, a significant Russian military response can be expected, which can create conditions of involving the U.S. directly in hostilities with Russia. Politically, domestically, Biden's decision could also be viewed as an effort to entangle future U.S. administration under President elect Donald Trump in war, derailing his election promise of ending it. Interestingly neither White House nor Pentagon, nor President Zelensky have openly declared the decision, perhaps to maintain deniability to tone down Russian retaliation. Since Ukraine is likely to bear the brunt of any Russian retaliation resulting from such decisions, some NATO nations that support Ukraine believe they have little to lose militarily if Ukraine escalates its conflict with Russia as long as their soldiers are not engaged in combat and do not receive body bags. They believe that in order to keep Zelensky's defences from collapsing until early 2025 or to put him in a position where he can engage in meaningful discussions, it is crucial to provide him with continuous military and financial support as well as to raise his morale. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war: Putin signs decree allowing nuclear strikes on non-nuclear states Miscalculations and Battlefield Realities The Biden administration's decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine seems to have been driven by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's persistent demands for more advanced weaponry to push back Russian forces, however, it might be a calculated risk/miscalculation on two counts depending on Russian response. First, by supplying long-range missiles with potential NATO guidance, the U.S. is effectively defying President Putin’s warnings. Earlier in ongoing war there were occasions when Putin did not follow up his threats of escalation when battle tanks and F-16 aircrafts were supplied to Ukraine; hence, Biden’s advisers feel that Putin may not follow up with nuclear options or striking some NATO target. Second, the use of long-range missiles may not be a game-changer on the battlefield. While these missiles could damage Russian infrastructure, they are unlikely to alter the fundamental dynamics of the war, where Russian forces have been making steady territorial gains in the east and south of Ukraine. The use of advanced weapons, while symbolically important for Ukraine, may not be enough to reverse Russia's momentum or lead to a decisive shift in the conflict's trajectory; hence, may not provoke a violent response of the magnitude that NATO can’t handle. Ukraine is short of trained manpower to hold on to its frontline and standoff strike weapons can’t compensate for this weakness. Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine: A Dangerous New Path As tensions rise, President Putin has also taken steps to reinforce Russia's military posture. In a move that signals an increasing willingness to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional aggression, Putin signed a decree updating Russia's nuclear doctrine. The decree includes several key provisions that could fundamentally alter the strategic calculus in the region. Under the new doctrine, nuclear deterrence is explicitly aimed not only at individual adversary states but also at military coalitions—especially those that possess nuclear weapons. Crucially, the doctrine now considers the participation of nuclear states in supporting a non-nuclear state's aggression against Russia as grounds for considering the conflict a "joint attack." This update marks a significant shift in Russia's stance, emphasizing that any attack on Russia by a non-nuclear state—if supported by a nuclear power—could trigger a nuclear response. Furthermore, the updated doctrine asserts that nuclear deterrence will be in effect at all times: in peacetime, during periods of immediate threat, and in wartime, right up until the potential use of nuclear weapons. These revisions suggest that Putin's government is willing to escalate the conflict further, with nuclear retaliation now seen as a legitimate response to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers, such as NATO. Maintaining a strong, battle-ready nuclear arsenal has been a part of Russian strategy and it has invested heavily in it. The Impending Escalation The risk of escalation is now clearer than ever. In the coming months, both Russia and Ukraine are likely to continue jockeying for advantage before the new year. Ukrainian forces are focused on resisting further Russian territorial advances, particularly in areas like Kursk and Donbas, where Russia has made notable gains. On the other hand, Russia is aiming to solidify its control over critical areas and create conditions that make Ukraine's NATO membership virtually impossible. Russia continues to ramp up its offensive, launching missile and drone barrages targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure, cracking Ukrainian defences in intense attrition warfare. Ukraine is boosting its firepower by using U.S.-supplied long-range missiles, the most recent incident saw Ukraine firing six ATACMS missiles at the Russian Bryansk region. While five of the missiles were intercepted by Russia’s advanced S-400 and Pantsir air-defence systems, one missile was damaged and its fragments caused a fire at a military facility. This attack, while not decisive, underscores the growing risks of a broader conflict as both sides trade blows on the battlefield. NATO’s Strategic Blind Spot? The broader question remains: Has NATO truly thought through the long-term implications of its support for Ukraine? Apparently the alliance may not have adequately considered the ultimate goals of the conflict, particularly in terms of conflict termination and avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. The prospect of a prolonged, protracted war could endanger Europe’s stability and security in ways that have not been fully accounted for. For Russia, the objectives are relatively clearer: solidifying territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, securing the Donbass region, and preventing Ukraine's NATO accession. For the West, the stakes are higher, as NATO’s involvement risks a direct clash with Russia. As both sides continue to escalate, the international community must be prepared for the possibility of even intensified war—and the potential for a nuclear confrontation that could impact the world in a catastrophic manner, that no one would like imagine. As the war completes thousand days to get into the final months of 2024, the risk of escalation remains ever-present. Ukraine’s use of U.S. long-range missiles can trigger a strong Russian response, while Putin’s nuclear doctrine update has created a dangerous new path toward the potential use of nuclear weapons, reminding of Cuban missile crisis. How deeply these decisions will plunge the opposing sides further into war risking humanity, remains to be seen, but the clock is ticking, with peace remaining a distant dream. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.

Rising Tensions: Biden’s Long-Range Missiles for Ukraine and Putin’s Nuclear Doctrine Update 

Moscow signaled to the West that it’s ready for a nuclear confrontation after Ukraine was given permission to attack Russian territory using US-made long-range missiles. Watch this report for more details!

Russia-Ukraine War: Ukraine Fires 6 American Missiles on Russia, Putin Updates Nuclear Doctrine

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated that Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles marks an escalation by the West in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Lavrov criticized the U.S. for supplying the long-range missiles, warning that it could further intensify the conflict. The missile strikes are seen as a significant step in Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russian forces.

Russia-Ukraine War: Lavrov Says Kyiv’s Usage Of ATACMS Is An Escalation By The West

Russia-Ukraine War | Moscow Signals to West: Ready For a Nuclear Confrontation

Russia has updated its nuclear strategy just a day after accusing U.S. President Joe Biden of risking World War III with his reversal on long-range weapons for Ukraine. The new doctrine states that any aggression from non-nuclear nations, in collaboration with a nuclear power, will be viewed as a coordinated assault on Russia. This announcement hints at a potential lowering of the threshold for the first use of nuclear weapons. Is World War III now inevitable? Is Russia gearing up for atomic escalation?

Putin Dares America With Nuclear Button After Biden's Ukraine Missile Move | GRAVITAS

Russia-Ukraine War: Russian FM Tells West to Read New Nuclear Doctrine

russia-ukraine-war

Russia Ukraine War, News on Russia Ukraine War, stories on Russia Ukraine War, articles on Russia Ukraine War, Russia Ukraine War stories at Wion, Russia Ukraine War news, Russia Ukraine War latest news

russia ukraine-war