In Greek mythology, gods often exhibited fierce, unapologetic displays of power, with Zeus’s thunderbolts symbolizing a force that was both feared and revered. In contemporary geopolitics, Russia’s stance under Vladimir Putin echoes this mythic imagery of unyielding dominance. As tensions escalate in the Russia-Ukraine war, Putin’s recent proposed changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine reflect a dangerous shift—from rhetoric to a tangible threat that the world cannot afford to dismiss. Unlike China’s oft-repeated “final warnings,” Russia’s warnings signal a genuine willingness to act, especially in response to Western support for Ukraine’s missile capabilities. The Kremlin’s relaxation of its nuclear threshold underscores a readiness to defend sovereignty with nuclear force, posing catastrophic consequences.

Historical precedents shed light on the legal ambiguities surrounding nuclear threats. During the Korean War, President Truman’s cryptic assertion that the U.S. would take “whatever steps necessary” lacked specificity, making it difficult to assess it under international humanitarian law (“IHL”). Similarly, Putin’s nuclear threats perpetuate legal uncertainty to an extent, however, it’s not ambiguous in totality. These ambiguities often serve strategic purposes—deterrence thrives on uncertainty. However, this raises the question: should general threats of nuclear use be scrutinized under IHL? Vague threats, by their nature, evade definitive legal evaluation, complicating their treatment under international law.

Source: https://thegeopolitics.com/what-if-final-warning-is-truly-final-russias-change-in-nuclear-policy-and-international-law/