At the battle of Stirling Bridge, 11 September 1297, the movie Braveheart has William Wallace provoking the English to battle, saying "Here are Scotland's terms. Lower your flags, and march straight back to England, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for 100 years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today. ... Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own ass."
Putin's Nuclear Crisis - June 2025
The month of June 2025 marked a period of heightened nuclear rhetoric from the Russian Federation, occurring against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine and significant Ukrainian military operations deep within Russian territory. The nuclear dimension of Russian strategic messaging intensified throughout the month, with statements from President Vladimir Putin, former President Dmitry Medvedev, and other senior officials reflecting Moscow's continued reliance on nuclear coercion as a tool of deterrence and political signaling. These references came at a particularly sensitive moment, following Ukraine's unprecedented Operation Spiderweb drone attack on Russian strategic bomber bases and coinciding with the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Russia's premier annual economic and political gathering.
On the first day of June 2025, Russia's nuclear triad found itself under direct attack for the first time in the conflict when Ukraine launched Operation Spiderweb, a coordinated drone assault targeting five Russian air bases across vast distances spanning five time zones.[1] The operation, which had been in planning for eighteen months and was personally overseen by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Security Service of Ukraine Chief Vasyl Malyuk, involved the smuggling of one hundred seventeen first-person-view drones deep into Russian territory, where they were concealed in mobile wooden cabins transported by truck.[2] Ukrainian officials claimed that the strikes disabled approximately one-third of Russia's strategic cruise missile carriers, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers as well as rare A-50 early warning aircraft, causing an estimated seven billion dollars in damage.[3] The attack reached as far as the Belaya Air Base in Irkutsk Oblast, Eastern Siberia, more than four thousand three hundred kilometers from Ukraine, demonstrating an operational reach that shattered previous assumptions about Russian strategic depth and the security of its nuclear-capable bomber fleet.[4]
The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that the attacks had taken place, describing the operation as a "terrorist attack using FPV drones" and acknowledging that fires had broken out at aircraft stationed at the Murmansk and Irkutsk bases.[5] The strike against Russia's strategic bomber force, which constitutes one leg of the country's nuclear triad alongside intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, represented an unprecedented escalation in the conflict and raised immediate questions about the vulnerability of Russia's nuclear deterrent posture. The fact that Ukraine had successfully penetrated deep into Russian territory to strike aircraft that are central to Moscow's nuclear strike capabilities challenged Russian claims of military superiority and territorial security, creating both operational and psychological pressures on the Kremlin.
Russia's official response to Operation Spiderweb came through various channels throughout June, but the most significant nuclear-related statements emerged during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, held from June eighteenth to twenty-first, 2025. The forum, themed "Shared Values as a Foundation for Growth in a Multipolar World," served as a platform for Russia to project economic confidence despite international isolation and to articulate its strategic position to a global audience that included leaders from Indonesia, Bahrain, South Africa, and China.[6] In his address to forum delegates on June twentieth, President Putin made several statements directly addressing nuclear weapons and Ukraine's recent actions, blending threats with claims of restraint in a carefully calibrated message designed to both deter further Ukrainian attacks and signal to Western powers the risks of continued support for Kyiv.
Putin's most significant nuclear threat during the forum came in response to hypothetical Ukrainian use of a radiological weapon. According to reports from the event, Putin warned of a devastating Russian nuclear response should Ukraine deploy a so-called "dirty bomb," which combines conventional explosives with radioactive material, despite acknowledging that there was no evidence Ukraine was considering such a course of action. In his own words, such an attack "would be a colossal mistake on the part of those we call neo-Nazis in today's Ukraine," adding that it "might be their last mistake."[7] Putin elaborated on this threat by stating: "Our nuclear doctrine states that we always respond to threats in kind. Therefore, our retaliation would be extremely harsh — and most likely catastrophic for both the neo-Nazi regime and Ukraine itself."[8] This formulation represented a characteristic element of Russian nuclear messaging throughout the war, where Moscow has sought to establish "red lines" while simultaneously maintaining strategic ambiguity about the specific circumstances that might trigger nuclear use.
Putin's statements at the St. Petersburg forum also addressed broader questions of Russian territorial claims and sovereignty. In remarks that provoked outrage in Kyiv, he told delegates that "all of Ukraine is ours," explicitly denying Ukrainian sovereignty and repeating the longstanding Kremlin narrative that Ukrainians and Russians constitute "one people."[9] While this statement did not directly reference nuclear weapons, it established the political and ideological framework within which Russia's nuclear threats must be understood, suggesting that Moscow views the entirety of Ukraine as falling within its sphere of existential interests. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded to Putin's comments in his nightly address, stating that they proved Putin had no intention of negotiating a ceasefire and that "Russia wants to continue the war."[10]
Following Putin's forum address, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev amplified the nuclear messaging through his Telegram channel on June twenty-first. Medvedev, who has emerged as one of the Kremlin's most prominent anti-Western hawks since the invasion of Ukraine began, commented directly on Putin's warning about dirty bombs. In his post, Medvedev stated that Moscow would have to respond proportionately to such an "extremely dangerous provocation," asking rhetorically: "With what? Clean bomb: TNW. We have enough of it. This is the same mirror answer that the Head of State announced."[11] The reference to "TNW" denoted tactical nuclear weapons, representing a more explicit statement about the type of nuclear response Russia might employ than Putin's own carefully worded threat. Medvedev advised those in Kiev with what he termed "bastard imagination" to "take a walk in the exclusion zone near Chernobyl" to understand the consequences of nuclear use, a statement that combined dark humor with implicit threats about the long-term environmental and humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear dimension of Russian rhetoric in June 2025 extended beyond statements directly related to Ukraine. On June twenty-second and twenty-third, following United States military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Medvedev made controversial claims about nuclear proliferation to Tehran. In a post on the social media platform X, Medvedev wrote: "The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads."[12] Although Medvedev did not specify which countries he believed were prepared to provide Iran with nuclear weapons, and later clarified that "Russia has no intention of supplying nuclear weapons to Iran" but that "other countries might," the statement represented an unprecedented claim about nuclear proliferation that drew immediate criticism from United States President Donald Trump.[13] Trump responded on his Truth Social platform, writing: "Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the 'N word' (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran?"[14] This exchange marked the beginning of an escalating war of words between Trump and Medvedev that would continue through the summer of 2025, with both sides making increasingly explicit nuclear threats and counter-threats.
The Russian nuclear messaging in June 2025 must be understood within the broader context of Moscow's evolving nuclear doctrine and its pattern of nuclear coercion since the beginning of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Throughout the conflict, Russian officials have made numerous statements widely characterized as nuclear blackmail, seeking to leverage the country's status as the world's largest nuclear power to constrain Western support for Ukraine and to deter Ukrainian military operations against Russian territory.[15] In November 2024, Putin had approved amendments to Russia's nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use, specifying that aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear state with the support of a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that Russia reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional attacks that posed a critical threat to sovereignty.[16] The June 2025 statements can be seen as an application of this revised doctrine to the specific circumstances created by Operation Spiderweb and the ongoing Ukrainian incursion into Russia's Kursk region.
Western responses to Russian nuclear rhetoric in June 2025 reflected a calculated attempt to avoid being intimidated while also managing escalation risks. Following Putin's statements at the St. Petersburg forum, NATO officials and European leaders issued statements dismissing Russian nuclear threats as propaganda while reaffirming their support for Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer characterized the "irresponsible rhetoric coming from Russia" as something that would not "deter our support for Ukraine," while French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot dismissed Putin's statements as mere "rhetoric," adding that "we are not intimidated."[17] These responses suggested a Western consensus that Russian nuclear threats, while never entirely dismissible given Moscow's massive arsenal, had become sufficiently routine and disconnected from actual nuclear use that they should not drive policy decisions. The United States State Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that Russia had sought to "coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior" since the beginning of the war, emphasizing that "Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia."[18]
The nuclear dimension of the June 2025 statements also intersected with questions about the broader modernization and readiness of Russia's nuclear forces. According to assessments published around this time by the Federation of American Scientists and other expert organizations, Russia maintained approximately fifty-four hundred sixty nuclear warheads as of early 2025, with an estimated seventeen hundred eighteen deployed warheads based on a triad of strategic delivery vehicles.[19] However, Russia's nuclear modernization program, which had been proceeding for decades to replace Soviet-era systems with newer versions, was facing significant delays due to the demands of the conventional war in Ukraine and the impact of Western sanctions on Russia's defense industrial base. The slowdown in strategic bomber production and the difficulties Russia faced in deploying new intercontinental ballistic missile systems like the Sarmat meant that the loss of bombers in Operation Spiderweb had immediate implications for Russia's nuclear strike capabilities.[20] This material degradation of nuclear forces, combined with the psychological impact of Ukraine's demonstrated ability to strike deep into Russian territory, created a complex backdrop for Putin's nuclear rhetoric, which sought simultaneously to project strength and to compensate for revealed vulnerabilities.
The timing and content of Russian nuclear statements in June 2025 also reflected broader geopolitical dynamics. The St. Petersburg forum took place just days before a NATO summit in The Hague on June twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, where alliance leaders were expected to discuss further increases in defense spending and support for Ukraine. Putin's nuclear messaging at the forum can be understood as an attempt to influence the summit discussions and to create divisions within the alliance about the risks of continued support for Ukrainian military operations against Russian territory. Additionally, the forum occurred in the aftermath of a major escalation in the Middle East, where United States and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in mid-June had significantly damaged a key Russian ally's capabilities, further complicating Moscow's strategic position.[21] Russia's attempt to position itself as Iran's defender while simultaneously being unable to provide meaningful military assistance highlighted the limitations of Russian power projection, making nuclear threats one of the few tools available to Moscow to signal its continued relevance and capability.
The pattern of Russian nuclear rhetoric in June 2025 revealed several consistent themes that had characterized Moscow's approach throughout the war. First, Russian officials sought to maintain strategic ambiguity about the specific circumstances that would trigger nuclear use, with Putin and others referring to doctrinal provisions about threats to sovereignty and territorial integrity without defining these concepts precisely. Second, the rhetoric sought to establish a direct linkage between Western support for Ukraine and the risk of nuclear escalation, framing NATO's provision of weapons and intelligence to Kyiv as an act that brought the alliance to the brink of direct conflict with Russia. Third, Russian statements repeatedly sought to portray Ukraine as illegitimate and to deny its sovereignty, suggesting that Russia's existential interests extended to the entirety of Ukrainian territory. Finally, the rhetoric served multiple audiences simultaneously, seeking to reassure the Russian domestic population of the country's strength while warning Western governments of the consequences of their actions and attempting to erode Ukrainian morale by suggesting the futility of continued resistance.
The question of credibility remained central to assessments of Russian nuclear threats in June 2025. Many Western analysts and officials concluded that while the risk of Russian nuclear use could never be reduced to zero given the country's massive arsenal and Putin's demonstrated willingness to escalate, the specific circumstances of the war made nuclear employment highly unlikely absent a direct threat to the existence of the Russian state itself. The fact that numerous Russian "red lines" had been crossed throughout the conflict without nuclear response, including Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, the sinking of Russian warships, and now the destruction of strategic bombers, suggested that Moscow's threshold for actual nuclear use remained considerably higher than its rhetoric might imply. However, this assessment contained inherent uncertainties, as the degradation of Russia's conventional military capabilities and the psychological impact of battlefield setbacks could potentially lower the threshold over time, making continued monitoring of Russian nuclear posture and rhetoric essential for crisis management.
By the end of June 2025, Russian nuclear messaging had become a defining feature of the conflict's strategic landscape. The combination of Putin's statements at the St. Petersburg forum, Medvedev's amplification through social media, and the broader context of Operation Spiderweb created a moment of heightened tension in which nuclear risks were more openly discussed than at any point since the early months of the invasion. The fact that these discussions occurred against the backdrop of actual attacks on Russia's nuclear-capable bomber fleet gave them particular salience, suggesting that the conflict had entered a phase where Ukraine was willing and able to target elements of Russia's strategic deterrent, while Russia responded with increasingly explicit threats of nuclear retaliation. The international community's challenge in this environment was to maintain support for Ukraine's legitimate self-defense while managing the risks of escalation with a nuclear-armed adversary whose rhetoric had become increasingly disconnected from rational strategic calculation, yet whose arsenal remained capable of catastrophic destruction.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
