The Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Ryabkov, has warned that the chance of nuclear conflict is higher now than at any point in recent decades. The Russian agency TASS carried the remarks, which underscore Moscow’s concern about the current global security climate.
Ryabkov refrained from arguing over whether the probability is high at this moment, but he asserted that it is higher than anything seen in the past several decades. He added that the point is clear: the risk exists and must be acknowledged. Officials in Moscow have long argued that the world should be free from the nuclear threat, a goal they say remains essential despite ongoing geopolitical tensions.
Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry, led by Sergei Shoigu, weighed in on potential Western military assistance to Ukraine. Reports on March 3 indicated Shoigu discussed the possible deployment of depleted uranium munitions by the United Kingdom, a move that critics say could have significant implications for safety and international law. The discussion reflects broader concerns about how outside actors influence the trajectory of the conflict and the risk calculus surrounding it.
On the same day, Mao Ning, the spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, addressed questions about the United States and its nuclear policy during a briefing. She suggested that the United States appears to be seeking to expand its nuclear arsenal, portraying the rhetoric of a nuclear threat from China as a rationale for that expansion. The spokesperson framed Washington as a principal source of perceived nuclear danger in the current global environment, a view that feeds into a broader strategic narrative about power competition among major nations.
Taken together, these statements from Moscow and Beijing, alongside Washington’s stated concerns, illustrate a complex landscape in which nuclear risk is framed as both a national security imperative and a shared global challenge. Analysts note that the exchange of accusations and the emphasis on deterrence reflect long-standing patterns in great-power diplomacy. The conversation also highlights how public remarks by senior officials can influence perceptions of threat and the steps leaders might consider in response to shifting strategic calculations. Observers emphasize that while rhetoric can escalate tensions, it also signals the enduring importance of arms control, verification, and confidence-building measures that keep channels open for diplomacy. The evolving discourse underscores why civilian leaders around the world argue for nuclear restraint, transparent policies, and international cooperation to reduce the likelihood of miscalculation in tense moments of global crisis. In this environment, observers say, credible diplomacy and consistent messaging remain crucial to preventing a slide into larger confrontation. The international community continues to monitor how the words of senior officials translate into policy choices on deployment, arms control, and regional security dynamics. Attribution: reports from TASS, official statements from the Russian Defense Ministry, and comments from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicate the continued salience of nuclear risk in statecraft today.