Russia’s nuclear threats amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are losing their deterrent effect, according to analysts and former NATO officials, posing complex challenges for European and global security. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has repeatedly warned it would use its nuclear arsenal to defend its territory, particularly focusing on the defense of Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave bordered by NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

In early October, Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly stated that Russia would deploy “all the weapons” at its disposal, including nuclear arms, if Kaliningrad came under attack. He emphasized Russia’s unmatched nuclear capabilities compared to other nuclear states such as France and the United Kingdom. Despite this rhetoric, these warnings have garnered limited attention in Western capitals, where other domestic issues have taken precedence.

Security experts have voiced concerns that Russia may be laying the groundwork for military operations within NATO territory, citing the Kremlin’s statements concerning Kaliningrad’s security. However, Western officials and analysts suggest that Russia’s nuclear threats are increasingly being discounted. This shift is attributed to repeated attempts by Moscow to use nuclear intimidation, which have not produced the intended strategic restraint among NATO countries or their support for Ukraine.

Initially, Russia’s nuclear warnings prompted caution from the United States and its allies, limiting the military support provided to Ukraine to avoid escalating into a nuclear conflict. Over time, however, the enduring “taboo” against nuclear weapon use became evident. Reports indicate that China and India warned Russia against resorting to nuclear weapons, while the United States reportedly threatened direct intervention if Russia crossed that line. Consequently, NATO and its partners have escalated their military aid to Ukraine, now including tanks, fighter jets, and long-range missiles capable of striking targets within Russia.

Notably, in 2025, Ukraine conducted a successful drone operation against Russia’s strategic nuclear bomber fleet—a move that under Russian military doctrine theoretically justifies a nuclear response. Despite this, Russia refrained from nuclear retaliation.

Rose Gottemoeller, former deputy secretary-general of NATO, noted that “nuclear deterrence is not working” as expected. The assumption that nuclear-armed states would be invulnerable to conventional attacks has been challenged not only by Russia’s experience but also by incidents such as Iran’s missile attacks against Israel and skirmishes between India and Pakistan—both involving nuclear-armed countries.

For Russia, the erosion of nuclear deterrence is particularly significant given that its vast nuclear arsenal remains one of the government’s key pillars of superpower prestige and strategic influence. Maintaining this stockpile is costly, and diminishing its deterrent value undermines a central element of Moscow’s security policy.

The fading potency of nuclear threats compels Russia to seek alternative methods to restore deterrence, leading to an increase in hybrid warfare tactics—including sabotage, targeted killings, and drone incursions across Europe. These actions heighten the risk of inadvertent escalation. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s intensification of attacks on Ukrainian civilian areas signals its turn toward conventional but aggressive forms of warfare escalation.

The weakening of nuclear deterrence also raises concerns that conventional military conflicts might become more feasible, especially in Europe and Asia. Most European NATO countries rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for their security. If potential adversaries begin to doubt the credibility of U.S. nuclear defense commitments, the risk of conventional war involving NATO states could increase. Russia itself might be emboldened to challenge NATO directly under these circumstances.

Both Russia and NATO continue to adapt their strategies as the Ukraine war evolves, grappling with the uncertainties surrounding nuclear weapon use. While the global taboo against nuclear warfare remains strong, its absolute nature is uncertain, adding a layer of unpredictability and risk to international security calculations.