News
This page features the weekly news and analysis digests compiled by Russia Matters. Explore them by clicking "Read More" below the current week's highlights and subscribe using the subscribe links throughout the site, like the one below, to receive our digests via email. Past digests are available in the News Archive, which is accessible via the link on this page.
7 Things to Know
- Vladimir Putin has continued to play both good and bad cop in Russia’s nuclear messaging to the U.S. and its allies in an interview with Russian TV this week. On one hand, Putin sought to assure his audiences in the March 13 interview that he doesn’t think a nuclear war is imminent, if only because Americans are not ready. On the other hand, however, in the course of the interview, Putin at least twice went beyond the description of conditions under which Russia would initiate the use of nuclear weapons that can be found in the 2020 Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence and 2014 Military Doctrine. First, when asked “When there were tough moments at the front in connection with Kharkov or Kherson, were you thinking of tactical nuclear weapons?”, Putin said: “The decision to withdraw troops from Kherson ... did not mean at all that our front was falling apart there.” Second, when asked whether the “idea” of using nuclear weapons has ever occurred to him, Putin said: “We have our own principles; what do they say? That we are ready to use weapons, including the ones you have just mentioned, when it is about the existence of the Russian state, about harming our sovereignty and independence. We have everything spelled out in our Strategy.” However, neither the 2014 doctrine nor the 2020 principles explicitly say Russia can initiate the use of nuclear weapons when its sovereignty and independence are “harmed.”
- Russia hails China’s initiative calling on nuclear powers to sign a treaty prohibiting first use of nuclear weapons, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said. "It is obvious for us that in a situation when the collective West has embarked on a path of non-stop escalation of the international situation and is disregarding the risks stemming from a direct armed confrontation between nuclear powers, such ideas present some common sense," he said of the proposal. In late February, Director-General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Department of Arms Control Sun Xiaobo called on nuclear powers to sign a treaty agreeing to not use nuclear weapons first.
- “Without supplemental assistance [from the U.S. and its allies] in 2024, you’re going to see more Avdiivkas,” CIA director William Burns predicted. “And that, it seems to me, would be a massive and historic mistake for the United States,” Burns was quoted by NYT as saying when co-presenting the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community in the Congress this week. Burns was echoed by a senior U.S. official, who told WP, “This doesn’t go well for Ukraine over time without a supplemental, and it could lead to potential collapse.” “There is no future that is bright for Ukraine without a supplemental and continued U.S. support,” the official said.
- In the past month, Russian forces have gained 65 square miles of Ukrainian territory while Ukrainian forces have re-gained 1 square mile, according to the March 13 issue of the Belfer Center’s Russia-Ukraine War Report Card. Moscow has made continual incremental battlefield gains since late 2023, according to the 2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The recent Russian gains included the village of Nevelske in the eastern Donetsk region of Ukraine, according to Russia’s MoD. However, it was the Russian armed forces that went on defensive in the Belgorod and Kursk regions this week when the Ukraine-based Russian volunteer units tried to seize territories in these two Russian provinces that border Ukraine. Russia’s MoD and FSB claimed to have fought off the incursions, according to Meduza.
- Russia can likely sustain its war effort for two to five more years at the current scale, WSJ cited a senior NATO official as estimating. At least two European military-intelligence agencies also believe Russia can produce enough weapons to last several more years, according to this newspaper. Russia is producing about 250,000 artillery munitions per month, or about 3 million a year, according to NATO’s estimate cited by CNN. In addition, each month, Russia is producing between 115 to 130 long-range missiles, and 300 to 350 one-way attack drones based on an Iranian model provided by Tehran, according to the estimate.
- There are multiple controversies in a new draft of Ukraine’s mobilization law, which seeks to update the country’s legal framework ahead of an anticipated recruitment wave, which could cost about $20.8 billion and in which up to 500,000 people could be drafted, according to FT. The most controversial aspect of the planned changes is the introduction of a so-called economic reserve system, which would exempt men considered critical to the economy, according to FT. Under the new system, these exempted individuals will instead have to contribute to the war effort financially. A February survey by Info Sapiens found that 48% of Ukraine’s men were not prepared to fight, while last year saw almost 1,300 Ukrainians sentenced for evading military service, according to FT and Ukrainska Pravda, respectively. The combat personnel shortage has become so acute that the Ukrainian parliament is considering a bill that would allow prison inmates to join the war effort, according to Bloomberg.
- Over 80% of the world, if measured by population, and 40% by GDP, is not enforcing sanctions on Russia, according toThe Economist.
5 Ideas to Explore
- Vladimir Putin returned to the possibility of an existential war with NATO during his very first press conference after Russian electoral authorities announced his reelection for another six-year term. “I think anything is possible in the modern world. But what I’m saying, and this is clear to everyone, that this will be one step away from full-scale World War III,” he told reporters when commenting on what a full-fledged conflict between Russia and NATO would entail.1 “We are forced to literally defend [our] interests ... with arms in our hands ... the [electoral] results ... show that ordinary people ... understand that,” Putin declared at his electoral HQ after winning 87% of the vote.2 When asked to comment on his main post-electoral tasks, Putin said, “First of all, we need to solve problems within the framework of the special military operation, ... strengthen the Armed Forces.” Putin’s warning of a WWIII came less than a week after he resumed sending mixed nuclear messages to the U.S. and its allies. On one hand, Putin sought to assure audiences in a March 13 interview that he doesn’t think a nuclear war is imminent. On the other hand, in the course of that interview, Putin went beyond the description of conditions under which Russia would initiate the use of nuclear weapons that can be found in the 2020 Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence and 2014 Military Doctrine. In particular, he implied that Russia could have used nuclear weapons if the Russian front in southeastern Ukraine had collapsed in the Kherson area. He also claimed that the 2020 principles allow for the use of nuclear weapons when Russia’s sovereignty and independence are “harmed.”
- Neil MacFarquhar has inferred five takeaways from Putin’s orchestrated victory in the March 15-17 presidential election. First, though the victory was a “foregone conclusion,” Putin’s numbers exceeded expectations as the incumbent received closer to 90% of the votes, the NYT journalist wrote. Second, the Kremlin “did not entirely achieve the image of national unity that it sought,” failing to fully suppress opposition actions prior and during the elections. Third and fourth, Putin will now “claim a popular mandate to pursue the war in Ukraine,” and that war “will continue to be an organizing principle for the Kremlin,” according to MacFarquhar’s analysis. Finally, common Russians are right to be “uneasy about what happens next,” given that the Kremlin had introduced unpopular policies after previous presidential elections, the veteran American journalist reminds us. For RM’s survey of American experts on Russia regarding whether and how the presidential election matters to the U.S. and its allies, see the section on U.S.-Russian relations below or click here.*
- Zhao Huasheng of China’s Fudan University and Andrey Kortunov of the Russian International Affairs Council granted a dual interview to Guancha to call for reducing the risk of a nuclear war. When asked “Is the risk of nuclear war real?” Zhao Huasheng told this Shanghai-based news site that “as long as the military conflict in Ukraine continues, the nuclear risk will not be eliminated and may become more and more serious.” “Although nuclear war is a low-probability risk, its prevention cannot be overemphasized, given its unforeseeable and serious consequences,” Zhao said. Kortunov concurred that the risk of a nuclear war was real. “To make things even worse, we now hear a lot of statements from experts and even some politicians suggesting that a nuclear exchange can be somehow controlled or limited. In my view, this is a highly questionable and dangerous assumption that should not be put to test under any circumstances,” Kortunov. Perhaps, Kortunov was implicitly referring to the calls for limited nuclear strikes made by some of his fellow Russian experts.
- One of the primary lessons of Russia’s war on Ukraine is that even “middling global powers have both the geography and the population and industrial resources needed to conduct an attritional war,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alex Vershinin writes in a commentary for RUSI. Thus, those in the West who think future conflicts will be short and decisive should think again, according to Vershinin. “If the West is serious about a possible great power conflict, it needs to take a hard look at its industrial capacity, mobilization doctrine and means of waging a protracted war, rather than conducting wargames covering a single month of conflict and hoping that the war will end afterwards,” according to Vershinin.
- Part of a “revolution in American foreign policy” proposed by Bernie Sanders in FA is to “cut excess military spending,” and that applies to U.S.-made arms supplied to Ukraine. “Like a majority of Americans, I believe it is in the vital interest of the United States and the international community to fight off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. But many defense contractors see the war primarily as a way to line their own pockets,” the veteran senator wrote. For instance, “it costs the United States $400,000 to replace each Stinger sent to Ukraine,” according to Sanders.
March 12 update:
March 12 update: No significant territorial change. Ukrainian drones struck oil refineries hundreds of miles inside Russia. Net territorial change in the past month: Russia +64 square miles.
Read more