In recent remarks, the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, warned that at some point a nuclear-armed nation might decide to use weapons of mass destruction if it feels cornered or discouraged. He conveyed this message through his book’s Telegram channel, framing it as a hypothetical scenario rather than a forecast. Medvedev stated that the commentary was timed to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a moment he described as a reminder of how devastating terrorist acts can be when planners believe they can act with impunity.
According to his account, terrorist organizations could reorganize in the future because of alleged arrogance and narcissism he associates with some Western powers. He further asserted that such actors might opt to employ atomic or biological weapons to advance their agendas, a claim he presented as a possibility rather than a certainty.
Medvedev suggested that, in the best possible outcome, American authorities would be compelled to allocate funds for another memorial at Ground Zero to honor the victims of the 2001 attacks. He did not present this as a prediction but as a worst-case projection tied to evolving threats.
He cautioned that, while he did not wish to provoke a confrontation, there could come a time when the United States and its allies expect terrorists to strike again in a manner reminiscent of September 11, 2001, or even more severely if a leader of a major nuclear nation loses composure and makes an impulsive decision to use mass destruction weapons. The emphasis was on the potential for drastic miscalculations in a volatile security environment.
The deputy chairman highlighted that the so-called nuclear club continuously expands, with new members entering the circle. He argued that many of these states do not accept binding obligations to uphold international security norms, an assertion that points to longstanding concerns about verification, compliance, and the consequences of proliferation.
There was also a note that earlier discussions among G20 members emphasized restraint in the use of nuclear weapons, underscoring the global preference for nonproliferation and stability. This legacy, he implied, remains under strain as geopolitical tensions evolve and new power dynamics emerge on the world stage. The overall message stresses caution, deterrence, and the importance of credible responses to evolving threats, rather than sensational predictions about imminent disasters, while acknowledging the real and persistent risks posed by unregulated actors and capabilities.
In examining these statements, analysts and policymakers are reminded of the delicate balance between warning about potential dangers and avoiding unnecessary alarm. The dialogue reflects ongoing debates about how best to deter nuclear escalation, prevent catastrophic misuse of weapons, and strengthen international mechanisms that aim to curb proliferation. The discussion also touches on the roles of alliance commitments, arms control treaties, and the capacity of global institutions to respond to emerging security challenges while protecting civilian populations.
Historically, leaders have stressed the importance of robust diplomacy, transparent communication, and verifiable disarmament measures as pillars of national and international security. As the international community weighs responses to evolving threats, attention to risk assessment, crisis management, and long-term stability remains central to policy conversations and strategic planning across major powers. This discourse continues to shape public understanding of how nations perceive, prepare for, and potentially deter extraordinary events on the global stage. ”}{