Yes they are empty or atleast thats what Putin's response suggestsThey are not empty threats when you have the means to act on them. That is what the morons in government in the West seem to forget. What we saw there in Dnipro, Ukraine was a single missile with 36 submunitions. Nothing in the Cold War had either that many submunitions, or the kind of accuracy that strike showed. If each of those submunitions could be nuclear, the Russians could lay waste to the entire Central and Western Europe with a fraction of the missiles that would be necessary back in the Cold War. Once production is ramped up they can also disable a country or two in Europe with just conventional strikes.
So this mean that doctrine thing is just a farce not to be taken seriouslyconfuse restraint with lack of ability to strike back.
Not really. What the change in doctrine modified is that while previously Russia stated it could use a nuclear strike as a counter to either a nuclear strike, or a conventional attack that could impact the viability of the Russian state, now this can also be done, in case of such attacks being done by third parties, like Ukraine, which are being provided with the weapons to do this by other states. Against the states sponsoring them. This provides the rationale for striking countries like the US, UK, or France if they continue providing long distance strike weapons to Ukraine which impact the viability of the Russian state or its nuclear deterrent.So this mean that doctrine thing is just a farce not to be taken seriously
That hilarious western cope. Yeah they "escalate" to make a big show at home when really these supports should have been provided to Ukraine at the start, and do not make a difference on the outcome.The talk now is about the US releasing JASSM against Russia.
It's not difficult to conclude, since Putin just complains in videos with what are seen as empty threats while the West continues to escalate with nothing to fear, unfortunately.