Essence of the Claim and Its Real Function
One persistent narrative of Russian propaganda asserts that because the United States used nuclear weapons in 1945, Russia today allegedly has a "moral right" to threaten their use. This claim deliberately replaces legal norms with moral rhetoric and erases the crucial distinction between historical fact and contemporary international legal order.
The real function of the narrative is not historical analysis but the legitimization of nuclear blackmail as an instrument of foreign policy and intimidation. It is used to normalize public threats of state destruction and justify pressure on international institutions.
How the Narrative Is Promoted
The thesis spreads through:
- official statements by high-ranking Russian officials about the "right to nuclear response";
- state media and pseudo-expert talk shows;
- manipulative comparisons without legal context;
- emotional appeals to "Western double standards."
Thus, legal discussion is intentionally replaced with moral relativism.
Historical and Factual Correction
The U.S. use of nuclear weapons in August 1945 occurred during World War II, before the establishment of the modern international legal system, before the adoption of the UN Charter, and before non-proliferation regimes existed.
The contemporary legal order was established precisely in response to 20th-century catastrophes. Comparing 1945 with the 21st century is a crude historical manipulation.
Russia, however, threatens nuclear weapons in peacetime, against a non-nuclear state, without any self-defense grounds recognized by international law.
International Law Norms Violated by Russia
Russian nuclear threats directly contradict the following obligations:
- UN Charter, Article 2(4) — prohibition of threats of force against the territorial integrity of states (full text);
- Budapest Memorandum 1994 — commitment to refrain from threats of force against Ukraine (official text);
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — obligation of nuclear states not to use status as a coercive tool (UN NPT);
- International Humanitarian Law — principle of civilian protection and prohibition of indiscriminate weapons (ICRC).
Nuclear Threats as an Independent Violation
It is important to emphasize that international law considers threats of force as a separate violation, even without an actual strike. This is confirmed by the International Court of Justice, including the 1996 advisory opinion on nuclear weapons (ICJ Advisory Opinion).
Public statements by Russian officials recorded between 2022–2025 fall into this category and constitute legally significant acts.
What This Claim Really Conceals
The appeal to Hiroshima is used to obscure the following facts:
- Russia has violated its own nuclear restraint commitments;
- nuclear blackmail is used to compensate for military failures;
- threats are employed as leverage against international assistance to Ukraine;
- there is a deliberate erosion of the taboo on nuclear weapons.
Scientific and Legal Assessments
Modern studies emphasize that normalizing nuclear threats increases the risk of escalation. This is supported by analyses from:
- SIPRI Yearbook — nuclear deterrence and threats;
- ICRC — Nuclear Weapons and IHL;
- IAEA — Public Assessments of Nuclear Escalation Risks.
Conclusion
Invoking Hiroshima as justification for nuclear threats is not an argument but a propagandistic substitution. International law was created precisely to prevent such catastrophes from repeating. By threatening with nuclear weapons, Russia violates not only legal norms but also fundamental principles of global security.
This narrative serves as a cover for aggression, a tool of intimidation, and an attempt to undermine international taboos established after World War II.
Main Sources and Documents
About the Authors
This article was curated and verified by a team of experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical analysis. Contributors have 15+ years of experience in research, legal documentation, and educational content development.
Methodology
The content on this site is compiled and verified by experts in international law, human rights, and geopolitical research. Sources include official legal documents, national and international legislation, resolutions of the UN, reports from international organizations, and verified open-source evidence. Each claim is cross-checked against multiple primary and secondary sources, ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and reliability regardless of the topic—whether analyzing violations of Russian law, Ukrainian law, or international legal norms.
Expert Statement
The authors affirm that the information presented reflects established legal interpretations and documented facts. Analyses are grounded in international law principles and widely recognized geopolitical assessments. References to official documents and reports are provided to ensure transparency and trustworthiness.
Last modified date: 25/11/2025