Nuclear War: How Western Media Preps The World – OpEd

Recent modification by the Russian government of its nuclear doctrine has given rise to a wave of news reports and analysis by western media that appears less concerned about the application of the updated doctrine than to tell the world that anything the Russians may want to do in its militarism, the West can do better.

In a 2020 decree, well before its invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia had warned that it may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or conventional attack that threatened the existence of the Russian state. This doctrine – enacted well before the war with Ukraine in 2022 – did not cause concern as it mirrored a similar if unpublicised doctrine of the United States and its western allies.

A later version of this decree proposed in September 2024 for a broadening of the threats under which Russia would consider a nuclear strike. It also included Belarus, an ally, under Russia’s nuclear umbrella and the warning that a rival nuclear power supporting a conventional strike on Russia or its ally would also be considered to be attacking it.

Since then there has been a worsening of the war situation in Ukraine with President Biden’s approval of the use of US long range missiles to strike targets within Russia. This was responded to by President Putin signing into law the earlier proposed September changes. To remind the West of the new red lines, Putin approved the launching of a potentially nuclear warhead carrying missile into Ukraine. Nicknamed ‘Oreshnik’, the hypersonic missile is capable of carrying six nuclear warheads and reaching its targets in Europe in 15-30 minutes.

Western Media Response to Oreshnik

Much of the reaction in western media circles, war analysts and think tanks has been not only to pour cold water on Russia’s capacity to begin a qualitatively new and more destructive phase of military combat. The Ukrainian newspaper. The Kyiv Independent, argued that Russia is engaged in a psych and propaganda offensive to create a climate of fear and scare Ukrainians and the West into submission (https://kyivindependent.com/oreshnik-strike-propaganda/)

Quoting The Moscow Times, a pro-west paper, the paper claimed that the propaganda offensive was coordinated between government, military, and intelligence officials, as well as PR experts as a response to the West’s decision to permit Ukraine to strike inside Russia with US and ally ATACM missiles (Army Tactical Missile System).

Although the US has said that it will not change its nuclear posture despite the lowering of the Russian threshold, western media have begun a counter propaganda offensive aimed at heightening condemnation of the Russian measures. At the same time a more intensive propaganda campaign is now ongoing amongst the wolf warrior forces of the west to impress western public on the ability of the US to successfully conduct a nuclear war.

Engaged are also more reputed western media channels intent on increasing their readership by putting up the nuclear war subject in their front page whilst assigning the blame for the start of any nuclear war to the enemies of the West.

For the ‘benefit’ of its Asian readership, the latest report by American weekly, Newsweek, which claims a large multicultural audience and ‘fair and independent’ journalism, provides detailed maps of the impact of a US initiated nuclear war in Asia. The report starts off with the following lead statement which is intended to absolve the US from responsibility in any of the wars taking place.

“The U.S. is inadvertently involved in multiple conflicts around the world in backing its allies, while also facing tensions with China over several issues including trade.”

According to the report casualties, in an US initiated first nuclear strike, would be of the following magnitude:

What is especially noteworthy in the report is that it is a follow up to initial modelling of the casualties likely from a Russian nuclear strike against the US and NATO capitals. This appears to give the impression that the magazine is fair in its reportage although the emphasis on the American ‘inadvertent involvement’ in multiple conflicts clearly exposes the paper’s real intentions.

The impact of such obviously slanted and clearly mischievous journalism is not only to play up the war fantasies of the forces and lobbies of war in the US and NATO. It is also to desensitize and harden the public into acceptance of the lives to be paid for in any nuclear conflict; and to justify this by assigning blame and responsibility to Russia, China and North Korea.

Policy of NFU on Nuclear Weapons

Most important and crucially missing from the current news reports and analysis on the possibility of a nuclear war taking place is discussion on the policy of first use of nuclear weapons (NFU). For now, China and India are the only two nuclear power countries that have formally committed to a no first use policy. In 1964, following the detonation of its first atomic bomb, China declared that it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Today it is the only nuclear-armed nation with an unconditional policy of NFU of nuclear weapons.

In contrast the US and NATO, and its member states of France and the United Kingdom, have repeatedly spurned demands from their public to commit to a NFU policy, thus showing a policy intent not only aimed at deterrence but also to warfighting and first strike.

Media and other stake players committed to preventing a nuclear conflict would do well to highlight the importance of all nations in subscribing to NFU. This would be a more constructive and worthwhile subject for their front pages than what they are now focusing on to prevent a nuclear holocaust.