Over the past few weeks, Russian federal channels have increasingly mentioned the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. Threats of a nuclear strike are heard against the background of the lack of significant success in the “special operation” announced by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.

Experts admit that such rhetoric can be designed both for the West – in order to force Western countries to make concessions, and for an internal audience: then the possible goal of these discussions is to prepare the population for the fact that Russia will not achieve victory in Ukraine.

The fact that Russia could use nuclear weapons was announced on the evening of May 8 by the host of Vesti Nedeli, Dmitry Kiselev, on the air of Rossiya-1. In “See Item 17,” Kiselyov said that Russia’s relations with the United States are becoming increasingly tense due to Washington’s sharing of intelligence with Ukraine, sanctions, and “many other things.”

“Obviously, the United States aims not just to contain Russia, but to completely destroy our country, cancel it, if you like in modern terms,” Kiselev concludes, adding that the US Congress openly declares that America is at war with Russia and cannot lose.

“If it comes to that, and if someone wants to create a threat to our very existence, then Putin’s logic comes into play: why do we need such a world if there is no Russia in it? state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence,” Kiselev says.

Next, the viewers are shown the 17th paragraph of the corresponding document. It states that “Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against it, when the very existence of the state is threatened.”

Kiselev already showed the same document in his program a week earlier, on May 1, in the story “Sinking Island”. In it, the propagandist talks about “the special role that Britain plays in the fate of Ukraine” and that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson “persuades Kyiv to continue fighting, promising help and even a nuclear strike against Russia.”

“Johnson said that if Russia uses any weapons of mass destruction in Ukraine, then Britain, without consulting NATO, “reserves the right to strike back on its own,” Kiselev said.

The news that Boris Johnson had threatened to launch a nuclear strike on Russia appeared in a number of Russian and Ukrainian media in late April and caused a stir among Russian propagandists. In reality, Johnson did not say this, the office of the British Prime Minister even issued a statement at the end of April in which he rejected this information and called it “another example of disinformation spread by the Kremlin.”

Downing Street’s rebuttal did not stop Kiselyov on May 1 from quoting Johnson’s fake statement and discussing it for about five minutes.

“Why threaten endless Russia with nuclear weapons while sitting on, in general, a small island? The island is so small that only one Sarmat missile is enough to sink it once and for all,” says Kiselev, and the audience at this moment is shown a map of the world from which the British Isles disappear as a result of a simulated rocket launch.

At the end of the story, Kiselev emphasizes that “Russia has no plans to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.” The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, has repeatedly spoken about this, the presenter added.

Russian officials have repeatedly stated that there is no talk of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. At the same time, Lavrov said on Channel One on April 25 that the threat of nuclear war is now quite real. “The danger is serious, it is real, it should not be underestimated,” he said.

On April 28, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called false allegations made in the West about the threat of nuclear war emanating from Russia.

On February 28, four days after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin put the nuclear deterrent on “special alert.”

In his February 24 speech, Putin addressed those “who might be tempted to interfere in the events [in Ukraine] from the outside”: “Whoever tries to interfere with us, let alone create threats for our country, for our people, know that the Russian response will be immediate and will lead you to consequences that you have never experienced in your history. We are ready for any development of events. All the necessary decisions in this regard have been made. I hope that I will be heard.”

Putin repeated a similar threat at a meeting with the Council of Legislators at the end of April: “If someone intends to intervene in ongoing events from the outside and creates unacceptable strategic threats for Russia, they should know that our responses to counter strikes will be lightning fast, fast.”

According to Medialogia, the number of references to nuclear war on Russian federal channels skyrocketed on April 25, when Lavrov made a statement that the threat of a nuclear war was real.

After that, nuclear war was talked about almost daily on Russian television, although from April 15 to April 25 it was mentioned less than five times a day, or not mentioned at all, follows from the data of Medialogy.

On April 28, on the air of the 60 Minutes program on Rossiya-1, viewers were shown an infographic “The flight time of the RS-28 Sarmat missiles to the capitals of the countries that give Ukraine the most weapons.” It showed a map with a diagram and time of a potential flight of missiles launched from Kaliningrad in London, Paris and Berlin.

Threats to use nuclear weapons began to sound on Russian federal channels amid the absence of any significant success in the war against Ukraine.

On April 26, the editor-in-chief of RT and the Rossiya Segodnya MIA, Margarita Simonyan, on the air of the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov program on Rossiya-1, talking about the possibility of the failure of the Russian “special operation”, said that “knowing us, knowing our leader Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich, there is no chance that we will just fold our paws.”

“The most incredible thing is that in the end all this will end with a nuclear strike, it still seems to me more likely than such a development of events,” Simonyan said.

Threats to use nuclear weapons, which have become more frequent on Russian television, should primarily be interpreted as an attempt to “scare” Ukraine and the West, political scientist Abbas Gallyamov believes.

“According to the Kremlin’s plan, they should make sure that Russia is “resolute” and agree to at least part of the conditions put forward by Putin,” he explained to the BBC.

Gallyamov admitted that the threats could also be directed at the domestic consumer. In this case, according to the political scientist, their goal is to prepare the Russians for the fact that Russia will not be able to achieve its goals in Ukraine: “The authorities are preparing the Russians for the lack of victory. Frightened by the prospect of a nuclear war, they should breathe a sigh of relief when peace is concluded, and don’t worry too much about not winning.”

Speaking about the possible use of nuclear weapons, Russian propagandists are trying to increase the degree of aggressive rhetoric, not by directly discussing the hostilities in Ukraine, but by abstract topics, said Petr Topychkanov, associate senior fellow at the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

“In this context, commentators, journalists and politicians feel free to rattle nuclear weapons, because here, on the one hand, they do not violate Russian laws in any way, and on the other hand, they show viewers that Russia can go to the bitter end – “We won’t stand up to the price. And thirdly, they support this high degree of aggression and bitterness, which is necessary – I don’t know for what purposes – for Russian television,” Topychkanov told the BBC.

Political scientist Yevgeny Roshchin also believes that the purpose of discussing a possible nuclear strike on Russian television is “to maintain a certain degree of emotional warming up of the audience, both supporters and opponents of the “special operation.”

“For some, this helps to mobilize, rally around the leader and simply not lose interest in what is happening. Others are put into a state of shock and panic by such conversations. And this applies to both the audience within the country and abroad,” Roshchin told the BBC. .

“And assuming that the propagandists manage to create such an atmosphere,” he continued, “then against its background, any decision, regardless of its content, after the end of hostilities, will be easier to sell both to a dissenting audience inside and outside it.”

If you follow the text of the Russian nuclear doctrine, then Russia now has no reason to resort to nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Topychkanov believes. “At the same time, the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine and the deterioration of Russia’s relations with the countries of the West create the prerequisites for the fact that the nuclear threat is growing,” he said.

At the same time, according to Roshchin, the very fact of discussing the use of nuclear weapons indicates the degree of madness that has gripped the Russian propaganda media, but, in his opinion, “both state propaganda and those who set limits to it in discussions” understand all real consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.

“Firstly, the use of even tactical nuclear weapons can quickly lead to such an escalation with which the end of the world inevitably comes. For us, for sure. Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons involves the destruction of both the innocent population of Ukraine and, quite probably the population of the nearest regions of Russia, where the winds will bring a radioactive cloud.

Third, for many doubtful Russians today, the use of such a terrifying weapon against ordinary people in a neighboring country could be a turning point in assessing the nature of the Russian political regime. If now many Russians have taken a position of denial, then the use of nuclear weapons will be a sobering shock for many,” Roshchin described the consequences.

To keep getting BBC news, subscribe to our channels:

Download our application: