Everybody understands that this new update of nuclear doctrine is just a way to answer to the reality of a new situation. It’s a manner to lower the bar to first use of nuclear weapons, at least in theory. The important point is in fact the  definition of the notion of aggression. Because it will be the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression using conventional weapons. In this case, that nuclear diferrence is aimed at ensuring the inevitability of retaliation in the event  of aggression. It’s of course a new step in a dangerous escalation but it’s not really a  surprise, when we know the classical data of this dictatorship which allows at a rather low level the possibility to use this kind of weapons at a tactical level. So, there is not really something which is radical in this change of position except its extension to the allies. But who cares about that? The real fact is that this change isn’t a real answer to the innovative decision of the US. And the proof is clear because at the same time there is a proposition in order to define a way to deescalation of the conflict. In reality, it’s a way to recognize that with dictatorships only tough ways are understood.  They don’t care about diplomatic positions because they consider them as something which is weak. By the way, they see democracies as systems of weakness and nothing more. But efficient democracies, can be tough and that’s the problem of this kind of dictatorship.