Amid the ongoing Russian military operation in Ukraine and the steady flow of Western military aid to Kyiv, leaders have increasingly referenced the specter of nuclear war as a real possibility.
The topic gained urgency after an interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Channel One, where he warned that the risk had grown. “The risks are significant and must not be amplified artificially. There are many who do. The danger is serious, real, and cannot be underestimated”, Lavrov stated. He recalled that in January the five nuclear powers, including Russia, reaffirmed the principle that nuclear war is unacceptable. “That is our firm stance. We started from it”, he added.
Following Lavrov, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock warned that the Ukraine crisis makes the threat of nuclear conflict harder to ignore.
She cautioned that no one can claim with certainty that a particular move would trigger immediate consequences, so while escalation cannot be ruled out, it also should not be assumed. The German foreign minister stressed that nations bear responsibility for detecting such risks, but should avoid inducing panic.
France’s spokesperson Anne-Claire Legendre also questioned the basis of the nuclear threat arguments, labeling the rhetoric a form of intimidation. In contrast, a U.S. defense spokesperson, John Kirby, underscored that there is no justification for nuclear escalation due to the Ukrainian conflict.
“No one wants this war to spread beyond what already exists. No one wants, nor should they want, a turn toward nuclear confrontation. There is no reason for that to happen”, he stated. He also called Russian leadership’s recent mentions of potential nuclear risks irresponsible. U.S. President Joe Biden echoed the sentiment, urging restraint from all parties when discussing nuclear weapons in connection with Ukraine.
As statements about nuclear risks become more frequent, it is notable that, toward the end of February, a declared alarm was set by Russia’s Strategic Deterrence Force following Vladimir Putin’s order for a special operation. These forces are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, including responses that could involve nuclear weapons.
On February 28, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that the order was carried out. He said that the Strategic Missile Forces, along with the Northern and Pacific Fleets and Long-Range Aviation task forces, had been placed on combat duty with enhanced readiness.
Is nuclear war worth it?
The expert community remains divided about whether a nuclear conflict could actually occur. Konstantin Blokhin, a prominent researcher at the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, argues that a nuclear war is unlikely. He described the threat as psychological pressure aimed at convincing Western powers to stop supporting Russia. Blokhin pointed to Lavrov’s remarks against the backdrop of Western arms for Ukraine, Sweden and Finland’s NATO bids, and third-country intervention rhetoric within the Ukraine crisis as elements of strategic signaling. He noted that no one would initiate such a war because Western nations would bear catastrophic losses; if it ever happened, it would be the last war in human history. Nuclear weapons would be used only when all other options have failed and the adversary is perceived as already near Moscow.
Meanwhile, Pavel Zolotarev, a senior figure at the US and Canadian-Russian Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, cautions that nuclear deterrence remains a factor in play. He emphasizes that unforeseen dynamics can arise, and outcomes depend on the personal calculus of state leaders. He also observes that the mere presence of nuclear deterrence can heighten alarm in moments of high tension.
The broader concern is that equilibrium has shifted toward greater reliance on deterrence in a volatile environment. Vladimir Vasiliev, a leading investigator at the Canadian Research Institute of the US and Russian Academy of Sciences, notes that Western advantages in conventional and allied capabilities complicate any calculation about nuclear escalation. He stresses that if the situation worsens, the risk of miscalculation grows, and decisive actions could follow in unforeseen ways.
In this context, several experts discuss under what conditions a nuclear option might be considered. The American doctrine, shaped under the Trump administration and reaffirmed in recent years, allows for the potential use of nuclear weapons in extreme cases to protect vital interests and allies if non-nuclear means fail to contain a conflict. The strategy also mentions the possibility of responding to conventional attacks with nuclear responses under certain circumstances, including strikes that would deter adversaries by demonstrating the consequences of escalation. The doctrine further acknowledges that non-nuclear responses could be part of a broader strategy, including cyber actions, to deter first use of nuclear weapons.
Russia, for its part, has framed its nuclear posture in the Fundamentals of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence, signed by President Vladimir Putin in 2020. Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons if attacked with nuclear weapons or if conventional force threatens the state’s existence. Yet both sides emphasize that the actual use of nuclear arms remains a last resort, and that the threshold for employing such weapons would be governed by the perceived severity of threats and the existential stakes involved.
Pavel Zolotarev points out that doctrinal documents often outline broad principles rather than precise triggers. He warns that greater ambiguity often strengthens deterrence, yet it also leaves room for misinterpretation. If Russia’s survival appears at risk, the calculus for preventive action could seemingly shift, though this remains a contentious and debated area among scholars.
The debate also touches on potential scenarios in which nuclear use might be contemplated within the Ukraine crisis. Some experts consider the possibility of limited, tactical use aimed at signaling resolve, while others worry about rapid escalation into broader conflict amplified by Western response. The discussion includes imagining responses that target NATO infrastructure or allied states, with the risk that such actions would redraw the strategic map and escalate beyond the Ukraine border. The conversation remains tightly bound to questions of risk, signaling, and the thin line between deterrence and escalation.
Ultimately, experts agree that preventing a slide into a nuclear confrontation is essential. The focus remains on de-escalation, open communication, and strategic restraint amid a highly charged geopolitical environment.