- Russia warns NATO's nuclear drills and talk of hosting U.S. warheads risk unraveling non-proliferation and could provoke a dangerous nuclear clash.
- Moscow's revised doctrine and recent missile exercises signal lowered thresholds for nuclear response, heightening European tensions amid stalled Ukraine diplomacy.
As autumn fog settles over the North Sea, the rumble of fighter jets slicing through the skies serves as a stark reminder that Europe’s post-Cold War thaw is long over.
NATO’s annual “Steadfast Noon” nuclear deterrence exercise kicked off earlier this month, drawing sharp rebukes from Moscow just as the war in Ukraine grinds into its fourth year.
In a briefing that echoed through diplomatic channels this week, Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a fresh warning: some alliance members are flirting with disaster by eyeing the end of self-imposed bans on hosting U.S. nuclear weapons, a move that could unravel decades of non-proliferation efforts.
The FrankNez Media Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
The exercise, involving up to 60 aircraft from 14 NATO nations and hosted this year by Belgium, is a routine affair on paper—fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads practicing maneuvers over the North Sea and the U.K., with no live ordnance involved.
But in the shadow of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, nothing feels routine anymore.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, speaking ahead of the drills, framed them as essential housekeeping, stating, “We need to do this because it helps us to make sure that our nuclear deterrent remains as credible, and as safe, and as secure, and as effective as possible.
It also sends a clear signal to any potential adversary that we will and can protect and defend all allies against all threats.”
From the Kremlin, the signal received is far less benign.
A Chilling Warning Between “Nuclear Powers”
Maria Zakharova, the Foreign Ministry’s outspoken spokeswoman, used a Wednesday briefing to zero in on Poland, accusing Warsaw of lobbying Washington to station American nukes on its soil—a direct challenge to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
“By resorting to such moves, formally non-nuclear NATO members once again demonstrate their defiant disregard for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” Zakharova said, her words carried by state news agency TASS.
She didn’t stop there, cautioning that “it should not be excluded that some of them… may completely abandon [their obligations] in the future.”
Zakharova labeled the Steadfast Noon drills “deeply destabilizing,” arguing they hone “the corresponding capabilities of the NATO countries” in ways that heighten strategic risks.
Her comments landed just days after Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov delivered an even blunter assessment during a webinar hosted by Moscow’s Center for Energy and Security Studies.
Ryabkov, a veteran of arms control talks, warned that NATO’s “hostile policy” risks “a head-on clash between nuclear powers.“
He singled out the alliance’s push for “joint nuclear missions,” including expanding the footprint of U.S. warheads across Europe and delegating strike authority to more non-nuclear allies.
“Among the relevant negative factors, we highlight the hostile policy of NATO countries, which can lead to a head-on clash between nuclear powers,” Ryabkov said, tying the critique to the erosion of treaties like the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) accord.
It Gets Deeper Than That
This isn’t bluster in a vacuum. Russia’s warnings come against a backdrop of stalled peace efforts and battlefield shifts in Ukraine.
President Vladimir Putin oversaw a sweeping nuclear exercise last week, directing launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles from silos, cruise missiles from strategic bombers, and submarine-launched projectiles in the Barents Sea— a triad demonstration meant to flex Moscow’s arsenal amid Western aid to Kyiv.
The drills, which Putin personally monitored, underscore Russia’s insistence that its nuclear forces remain “in constant combat readiness,” as the Defense Ministry put it.
On the diplomatic front, U.S. President Donald Trump postponed a Budapest summit with Putin this week, aimed at hashing out Ukraine terms.
Trump, fresh off pushing for a ceasefire along current lines, has clashed with Moscow’s demands for full Donbas control—a nonstarter for Kyiv.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, has rebuffed territorial concessions, even as Russian forces inch forward in the east at a staggering human cost: estimates suggest 1,000 Russian casualties daily.
NATO, for its part, dismisses the Kremlin’s saber-rattling as escalation theater.
Will Russia Be Forced to Take Nuclear Action?
Rutte, in his first major press conference as secretary general last month, called Putin’s rhetoric “reckless and irresponsible” but insisted no imminent nuclear threat loomed.
“We do not see any imminent threat of Russia using [nuclear] weapons,” echoed NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană in a separate interview, though he lamented how such talk “erodes trust.”
The alliance has no plans to deploy troops to Ukraine, Geoană added, emphasizing deterrence over direct confrontation.
Yet the undercurrents run deeper.
Russia’s revised nuclear doctrine, signed by Putin last November, lowers the bar for atomic use: strikes from non-nuclear states backed by nuclear powers—like U.S.-supplied missiles fired by Ukraine—could now trigger retaliation against NATO assets or even Kyiv itself.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov framed it as a response to Biden-era decisions allowing long-range strikes into Russia, calling it a “new round of tensions.”
Analysts note this builds on a pattern: Moscow’s suspension of the New START treaty in 2023, threats to resume testing, and deployments of tactical nukes to Belarus.Europe isn’t standing idle.
Germany, a key player in NATO’s nuclear-sharing program, has faced its own warnings.
Last August, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul decried Russia’s “nuclear blackmail” as a direct assault on global arms control, vowing Berlin’s commitment to preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions alongside France and the U.K.
“Unfortunately, we also see countries like Russia engage in nuclear blackmail, thereby calling into question the nuclear order and its function as a central pillar of global security,” Wadephul said.
Further afield, concerns spill into space and beyond. In April, Rutte alerted allies to intelligence suggesting Russia might orbit nuclear anti-satellite weapons, breaching the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
NATO is bolstering satellite defenses and intel-sharing in response.
On the chemical and biological front, a recent Atlantic Council report assessed Russia’s CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) playbook, concluding a full-scale nuclear strike remains unlikely but chemical use in Europe could persist to sow discord.
“Russia will likely continue using chemical weapons in Europe in a range of scenarios over the next five to ten years,” the report warned, citing efforts to fracture alliance unity.
What Comes Next?
Back on the ground, Rutte has urged a “quantum leap” in NATO spending—to 5% of GDP by next month’s summit—to counter Russia’s buildup of a 600,000-strong force eyeing the eastern flank.
The U.K., under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, echoed this with its strategic defense review, declaring a “new era of threat” and committing to “battle-ready” status.
Moscow, predictably, calls it fearmongering to burden taxpayers. For now, emergency hotlines between Washington, Brussels, and Moscow hum quietly, a thin thread against miscalculation.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko confirmed their functionality last month, even as he accused NATO of amplifying nuclear roles in its strategy.
But with Steadfast Noon wrapping up and winter looming over Ukraine’s trenches, one thing is clear: the nuclear shadow lengthens, and de-escalation feels like a distant hope.
Also Read: A DOJ Whistleblower Now Makes Revelation That Undermines the Judicial System’s Integrity
