On October 14, 2009 the Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Patrushev, being interviewed by the "Izvestia" newspaper, speaking about the contest of the new Russian Military Doctrine stated: “When the national security is threatened the preventive nuclear strike can’t be excluded”. The statement provoked wide response both in Russia and abroad. The preventive use of military force always attracts attention even if there are no direct evidence of such intentions.
Why should Russia frighten anybody with the preventive nuclear strike? - asks Russian political analyst Andrey Pavlov. History shows that the preventive strike was chosen when there was extreme growth of menace that was impossible to stop. Hardly the current situation about Russia develops this way. Terrorism and drug trafficking expansion can’t be tackled with the nuclear weapon. The containment of another state aggressive behavior through the demonstration of more expanded aggression is not worth doing. Nevertheless the negative reaction can be predicted at least on the example of France. Thus the Secretary of Russian Security Council meant the right to be the first to use the nuclear weapon but not preventive strikes. He may have spoken about the preventive strike at “aggressor” and not “potential aggressor”. That is the enemy who conducts the intervention and not just intends to do it or plans it. However western experts reacted rapidly and negatively. When the document was exhibited to the public and there was no point regarding the preventive strike, it was considered that this point remained in closed drafts. And though the meaning of restrictive menaces hidden from the potential aggressor is difficult to understand, the opportunity to blame Russia of being aggressive referring to the Russian menace of preventive strikes will be used more than once... http://www.eastwest-review.com/artic...itary-doctrine

As for this particular article I believe Russia is just following Bush's USA behavioral pattern. For me it is quite obvious that we would NEVER use nuclear weapons - just as a reaction to a similar agression from some (but which?) state. So I don't see much sense in this nuclear talks - just, may be, an urge of a big country to show its potential strength.