Why Putin's threats don't signal an imminent nuclear strike and what the West thinks

The Russian missile attack on Dnipro, using intercontinental ballistic weapon designed for nuclear warheads, marks a significant escalation in its war against Ukraine.

The military impact of this strike is dubious though.

The clear objective for Russia is to raise the stakes in nuclear blackmail against the West, especially after Putin approved a new nuclear doctrine.

Read more in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, the European Pravda editor, who disscusses the likelihood of using nuclear weapons and how Western partners view these threats with Hanna Shelest, he Security Studies Program Director of the Foreign Policy Council Ukrainian Prism – What has changed with Putin's nuclear threats? Explaining the West’s response to Russian blackmail.

What we see now aligns with Russia’s typical tactics: constant escalation.

But it is crucial to understand that this escalation is focused on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, rather than signaling a readiness to use them.

While NATO countries do harbour fears that Putin might press the proverbial "red button," this creates a vicious cycle.

Putin will continue leveraging nuclear threats as long as the West takes them seriously.

Does the use of the Oreshnik missile on Dnipro suggest a shift in approach or preparation for actual nuclear deployment?

Unlikely. Instead, it reflects Putin's insecurity about the effectiveness of prior threats, particularly as Ukraine gains permission to strike Russian territory with Western missiles.

Regarding Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw the US from NATO, such a scenario remains improbable.

While NATO persists and is likely to keep existing, Europe has repeatedly revisited the idea of "strategic autonomy." This concept has been discussed for decades but gained more traction under Trump.

Nevertheless, no substantial progress has been made on establishing a system of collective European security.

The idea of a unified European army, which has been a hot topic of discussion, lacks broad support.

After 2022, Europe effectively abandoned the idea of a standalone army because the full-scale war in Ukraine has revitalised NATO’s significance.

Instead, the EU and NATO are focusing on dividing responsibilities to avoid duplication.

– Military planning: NATO.
– Logistics: A shared responsibility between NATO and the EU.
– Europe's defence industry: An EU concern, primarily driven by financial considerations.

The EU cannot fully replace the United States in aiding Ukraine due to limitations in production capacity. Expanding these capacities is expensive, time-consuming, and complex.

The US, by contrast, still has significant stockpiles of military equipment that other countries cannot match through agreements.

So US assistance will remain vital for Ukraine.