Rising nuclear rhetoric and cautious responses
It has long been clear that Vladimir Putin would use nuclear rhetoric as a pressure tool, and observers in Washington began discussing that reality early on. A former ambassador to Russia, writing in a well-known policy journal, warned that ignoring the risks of escalation would be naive, while dismissing them entirely would be equally foolish. He suggested a stance that recognizes danger without becoming paralyzed by it.
That same mindset shapes the public posture of the Biden administration in the face of Russia’s latest nuclear warnings. The approach does not minimize the risks, yet it aims not to amplify them beyond what is necessary. On March 13, White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre noted that Russia’s nuclear rhetoric has been irresponsible and reckless throughout the conflict, but she emphasized measured responses rather than panic or overreaction.
She added that there was no need to adjust the United States’ own nuclear posture, nor any indication that Russia was preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. This message echoed the joint stance voiced by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom during February’s Munich Security Conference, underscoring a shared preference for deterrence and careful diplomacy over dramatic signaling.
A history of heightened alert in 2022
The current calm contrasts with the latter half of 2022 when public warnings rose dramatically. At a donor dinner, President Biden spoke of a looming Armageddon scenario in the event of a sustained nuclear threat, signaling a high state of concern. He insisted that the United States would not rely on tactical nuclear use to avoid catastrophic consequences, underscoring a belief that conventional power remained essential to preventing escalation beyond control.
Two recent books by investigative reporters shed light on why the alert level climbed at the time. They indicate that officials in the White House and the Pentagon worried more than publicly acknowledged, and a source described the fear as grounded in specific intelligence rather than mere hypothesis.
Western intelligence agencies reportedly intercepted discussions about a potential nuclear strike and flagged Russian military officials examining how such a strike might be executed. Moscow also raised allegations that Ukraine could trigger a false-flag operation. In that climate, assessments suggested a substantial probability—perhaps around half or more—that a nuclear scenario could unfold, prompting preparatory planning across agencies and allied partners.
The concern was that Moscow might detonate a tactical nuclear weapon, smaller and easier to move than strategic arms, capable of being launched from conventional platforms. Such an event would mark the first nuclear detonation in warfare since World War II. While officials cautioned that there was no obvious sequence of steps indicating imminent use, the possibility had to be taken seriously and monitored closely.
Efforts to prepare included high-level discussions within the National Security Council and with foreign counterparts, as well as coordination with allies and key global players. The aim was to craft a response that would deter without provoking a full-blown nuclear exchange, maintaining a posture that upholds deterrence while avoiding unnecessary escalation.
In parallel with strategic planning, Washington sought to balance firmness with restraint. The approach favored non-nuclear but forceful options to deter aggression, ensuring that any response would deter Russian moves without rewarding a shift toward uncontrolled escalation.
Risks and prudent restraint
More than a year later, Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric and the broader strategy of escalatory signaling are still treated with seriousness in Washington. A former energy secretary, now leading a nuclear threat initiative, noted that Russia’s public displays of saber-rattling reflect a growing dependence on nuclear leverage as a substitute for conventional military strength. This shift, he argued, heightens overall risk by increasing the weight of nuclear deterrence in Moscow’s calculations.
Regardless of the rhetoric, the administration has avoided alarmist language or direct verbal duels with Moscow. In February, after a congressman raised alarms about a space-based nuclear capability, White House officials sought to reassure the public that the issue is being managed, that progress is being monitored, and that no deployment has been confirmed. The emphasis remained on sober assessment and steady diplomacy rather than sensational headlines.
This week, the United States put forward a resolution at the United Nations Security Council with like-minded partners to curb orbital weapons and other forms of mass destruction. The effort faced skepticism given Russia’s veto power, but Washington signaled willingness to engage in bilateral talks with both Moscow and Beijing on arms control and nonproliferation, aiming to keep channels open and reduce the risk of miscalculation.
One major challenge remains the status of the New START treaty, from which Russia suspended participation last year. The agreement regulates strategic weapons and delivery systems, but it does not cover large numbers of tactical nuclear weapons or U.S. bases hosting missiles in Europe. This gap complicates efforts to monitor and limit the arsenal on both sides while international diplomacy seeks to prevent a new arms race from taking hold.
According to the latest intelligence assessments, Russia maintains a large and varied nuclear arsenal and continues to modernize its capabilities. Analysts note that Moscow is expanding non-strategic systems able to launch nuclear or conventional warheads, while developing long-range missiles and submarine launch platforms designed to penetrate defenses. The intelligence community views these moves as part of a broader strategy to deter and possibly deter a direct conflict with NATO and the United States.
The balance remains delicate. If Russia suffers losses in Ukraine, reconstruction will stretch for years, possibly pushing Moscow toward greater reliance on nuclear deterrence. At the same time, officials stress that Moscow still sees nuclear capabilities as essential to its national security strategy, offering a form of insurance against perceived threats while seeking to avoid a major war with Western powers. The assessment, while cautious, points to a space where risk persists without a clear path to rapid de-escalation in every scenario.
Read more to stay informed