俄罗斯政府最近修改俄核威慑政策，引发了西方媒体的一波新闻报道和分析浪潮，这些媒体似乎不太关心修改后的政策，而是想告诉世界，无论俄罗斯军国主义做什么，西方都能做得更好。
早在2022年入侵乌克兰之前，俄罗斯在2020年颁布的一项法令中警告，如果敌人发动核攻击或威胁到俄罗斯国家生存的常规战争，俄罗斯可能会使用核武。这一立场早在2022年与乌克兰的战争之前就已颁布，但当时没有引起关注，因为这也是美国及其西方盟友未公开宣示的立场。
俄罗斯于2024年9月提呈的最新政策版本中，提议扩大俄罗斯核反击的范围。这包括俄罗斯核保护伞下的盟友白俄罗斯，并警告称，支持对俄罗斯或俄国盟友进行常规战争的核子敌国，也将被视为对俄罗斯进行攻击。
随著拜登总统批准使用美国远程导弹打击俄罗斯境内目标，乌克兰战局会进一步恶化。普京总统对此做出了回应，批准了9月提出的俄核威慑政策修改。为了提醒西方新的红线，普京批准向乌克兰发射携带核弹头的导弹。这称为“榛树”（Oreshnik）的高超音速弹道导弹，能够携带六枚核弹头，并可在15至30分钟内到达欧洲目标。
西方媒体回应
西方媒体、战争分析家和智库的大部分反应是，对俄罗斯开启全新且更具破坏性的军事战斗阶段的能力泼冷水。乌克兰报纸《基辅独立报》认为，俄罗斯正在进行心理攻势和宣传攻势，旨在制造恐惧气氛，吓唬乌克兰人和西方国家屈服。
这分亲西方报纸，引述《莫斯科时报》的报导，这次俄罗斯宣传攻势是政府、军方和情报官员以及公关专家协调进行的，是对西方允许乌克兰使用美国ATACM导弹（陆军战术导弹系统）
袭击俄罗斯境内决定之回应。
尽管如此，美国表示，即使俄罗斯降低动用核武门槛，美国也不会改变其核态势，但西方媒体开始反宣传攻势，旨在加强对俄罗斯措施的谴责。西方的战狼势力正在进行更密集的宣传活动，目的是让西方大众相信美国发动核战的能力。
一些受人尊敬的西方媒体也参与这场宣传战，它们致力于透过核战主题讨论来增加读者流量，同时将任何核战的爆发归咎于西方的敌人。
基于拥有庞大亚洲读者，美国周刊《新闻周刊》，这份声称拥有大量的多元文化受众和“公正、独立”新闻报道的媒体，在其最新报导中，提供了美国在亚洲发起核战争影响的详细地图。文章开头如下：
“美国为了支持其盟友而无意中卷入了世界各地的多重冲突，同时也与中国在贸易等多个问题上处于紧张关系。”
报导称，美国若发起核攻击，其一次造成的伤亡规模会如下：
报导中值得注意的是，这推演是建设在俄罗斯对美国和北约首都先展开核攻击造成伤亡的后续行动，以让人对该杂志在报道存有公正的印象，同时强调：美国“为了支持盟友而无意中卷入了多场冲突”。
这种显然带有偏见且明显恶意的新闻报导，其影响不仅在于煽动战争势力和游说团体挑起核冲突的战争幻想，还在于使公众逐渐接受为核战付出的生命代价，并通过将责任归咎于俄罗斯、中国和朝鲜来为这一切辩解。
不先动用核武政策
当前关于核战争前景的新闻报导和评论中，缺少了一个重要——甚至可能是关键——的细节，即有关“不先动用核武”的政策讨论。
目前，中国和印度是仅有的两个正式承诺不先动用核武的国家。在1964年，第一颗原子弹成功爆炸后，中国宣布永远不先动用核武；至今，中国也是唯一无条件下承诺下不先使用核武的国家。
相比之下，美国、北约以及其成员国法国和英国多次拒绝本国公众要求其承诺采取“不先动用核武器”政策的呼声，这表明其政策意图不仅限于威慑，还包括战争行动及先发制人的打击。
致力于和平的媒体和其他利益相关方，应该更积极地探讨“不先动用核武器”政策的主题。这将是一个比他们目前关注的防止核浩劫话题更具建设性和价值的议题。
林德宜《核战：西方媒体战狼》原文：Nuclear War : Western Media Wolf Warriors
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 further 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 proposed September changes. To remind the West of the new red lines, Putin approved the launching of new potentially nuclear warheads carrying missiles 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, 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 intended to create a climate of fear and scare Ukrainians and the West into submission
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. An even more intensive propaganda campaign is now ongoing amongst the wolf warrior forces in the west to impress western public on the ability of the US to successfully conduct a nuclear war.
Engaged are also more respectable western media channels intent on increasing their readership by taking up the nuclear war subject 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. It starts off the article with the following lead statement
“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 the US initiated first nuclear strike would be of the following magnitude
US Target Number Killed Number Injured
Pyongyang 1,327,820 1,105,660
Moscow 1,374,840 3,747,220
Beijing 1,548,460 3,332,190
See https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-b-83-north-korea-russia-china-1993277
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 so as to give the impression that the magazine is being fair in its reportage whilst emphasising that the US is “inadvertently involved in multiple conflicts … in backing its allies”.
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 initiating a nuclear conflict. It is also to harden the public into acceptance of the lives to be paid and to justify this by assigning blame and responsibility to Russia, China and North Korea.
Policy of NFU on Nuclear Weapons
Missing from the current news reports and commentaries on the prospect of a nuclear war is the important - perhaps critical - detail 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; and today 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 own public to commit themselves 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 peace would do well to pursue the subject of NFU. This would be a more constructive and worthwhile subject than what they are focusing on to prevent a nuclear holocaust.
要看最快最熱資訊，請來Follow我們 《東方日報》WhatsApp Channel.
