The discussion about using nuclear weapons in Ukraine has been framed by Russian officials as unnecessary for achieving strategic goals. On Tuesday, August 16, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke at the Moscow Conference on International Security and stated that from a military perspective there is no need to deploy nuclear arms in Ukraine to reach objectives.
He described the primary purpose of Russia’s nuclear forces as deterring a nuclear attack. Its use, he asserted, would be limited to emergencies defined in publicly available guidelines. Shoigu also dismissed Western narratives about a Western supplied superweapon to Ukraine, noting that Russia has closely studied captured Western samples and integrated their characteristics into its own assessments to improve effectiveness.
While presenting a positive view of Russian weapons, Shoigu argued that Western claims of superior anti-tank systems and drones have not translated into decisive battlefield shifts. He noted that while weapons such as the Javelin anti-tank system and certain drones were initially highlighted, more recently systems like HIMARS and long range howitzers have been promoted as game changers by the West. In his view, these weapons have nonetheless been deployed and have not produced a decisive impact on operations.
Shoigu alleged that Ukrainian military actions are planned in coordination with the United States and the United Kingdom. He claimed that Western advisors control both the coordinates of strikes and their entry into weapons systems, a process conducted under full Western oversight.
According to him, Western nations bear responsibility for civilian deaths in Donbass due to the delivery of NATO weapons to Kiev. He asserted that Kiev’s role in Western strategy has been reduced to supplying manpower, which is seen as expendable, resulting in heavy losses among Ukrainian forces and territorial defense formations. He suggested that the true casualty figures are being concealed by Kyiv, though he anticipated those numbers would eventually become public.
The general also asserted that in a hybrid war against Russia, Western powers coordinate the Ukrainian leadership, increase weapon and equipment supplies, and train West Ukrainian forces. He emphasized that adherence to the Geneva Conventions remains a focal point for Russian military commanders at all levels, and that orders issued at the outset of operations guide how personnel interact with civilians and prisoners of war.
Shoigu thanked the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross for constructive and nonpoliticized humanitarian cooperation during the operation. He highlighted the UN and Turkey’s role in facilitating grain exports from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and noted the mediation work of Red Cross experts regarding captured soldiers.
NATO’s eastern flank
The defense minister argued that the deployment of additional NATO formations on Europe’s eastern flank began before the Ukrainian operation. He suggested this expansion mirrors a broader erosion of trust and arms control that characterized the Cold War era and asserts that Europe should consider confidence-building measures, possibly drawing lessons from the Asia-Pacific region.
Shoigu rebutted the idea that Russian actions in Ukraine drove Sweden and Finland to join NATO, noting that their rapprochement with the alliance had been in progress for years. He warned that deploying offensive weapons on their soil would require a reassessment of how Russia defends its territory in response.
He argued that the participation of Helsinki and Stockholm in NATO strategic planning and the potential use of their territory for strike weapons would alter security dynamics in the Baltic region and the Arctic, warranting a review of defense approaches. He indicated that conclusions have already been drawn and reflected in an updated Naval Doctrine.
We need conflict to maintain power
Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed participants at the Moscow Conference, saying that a unipolar world order is fading. He argued that Western powers seek conflict to retain control and that the United States and its allies actively interfere in other nations, provoking civil strife. According to him, Western dominance leads to global stagnation.
Putin suggested that tensions could be reduced and common threats overcome by building a multipolar world order that emphasizes sovereign development and diverse national identities. He stated that Russia would continue strengthening international security mechanisms and improving existing ones, while boosting its armed forces and security institutions with modern weaponry. He stressed restoring respect for international law and reinforcing the positions of the UN and other platforms for international dialogue.
Putin asserted that the Security Council and the UN General Assembly should serve as effective instruments to reduce tensions, prevent conflict, and safeguard the security and well-being of nations and peoples. The speech highlighted the leadership’s intention to pursue a broader, more inclusive international security framework while emphasizing national interests and regional stability.
These remarks were presented within the broader context of Moscow’s view on international security and the balance of power, reflecting official messaging about strategies for safeguarding Russia and its allies in a changing global environment. No external links accompany this summary, but readers can consider official statements from the Russian government and its agencies for primary context.
In summary, Moscow portrays its actions as defensive and aligned with humanitarian principles, while viewing Western military aid to Kyiv as a driver of ongoing hostilities. The discussions at the conference underscore a continued emphasis on strategic deterrence, alliance dynamics, and the pursuit of a multipolar world order that respects state sovereignty and international law.