What explains the limited impact of Putin’s nuclear threats on the West?

Over the course of more than 1,000 days of conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently cautioned Western allies of Ukraine about severe – potentially nuclear – repercussions if they choose to “escalate” the situation by supplying Ukraine with the necessary arms for its defense.

This month, Putin’s warnings intensified following the Biden administration’s approval for Kyiv to utilize longer-range American weaponry against targets within Russia. In retaliation, Putin revised Russia’s nuclear strategy and launched a new ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads towards Ukraine. This action was interpreted as a stark warning to Ukraine’s supporters: Do not provoke us.

As the war approaches its third anniversary, these patterns have become increasingly predictable. Each time Ukraine has sought assistance – initially requesting tanks, followed by fighter jets, cluster munitions, and now long-range weaponry – its allies have deliberated over the implications of fulfilling these requests, concerned about escalating tensions and provoking a Russian reaction.

However, each time the West has ultimately acquiesced to Ukraine’s demands, the dire threats from Russia have not come to fruition. What was once considered unacceptable one week has quickly become standard the next.

Despite Putin’s intensified threats following the latest breach of established norms, analysts remain skeptical that this situation will yield different outcomes.

The anxious response to Ukraine’s newly granted powers exemplifies the Kremlin’s effective strategy of compelling the West to interpret the conflict through Russia’s lens, mischaracterizing Ukraine’s efforts to counter Russian aggression as significant “escalations.”

In addition to military confrontations, the Kremlin has been actively working to shift the narrative, urging the West to adopt Russian viewpoints and make decisions within a framework that favors Russia’s objectives, as noted in a March report by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

Kateryna Stepanenko, a co-author of the report, explained to CNN that this approach mirrors the Soviet-era concept of “reflexive control,” where a state creates a misleading set of options for its opponent, compelling them to act against their own interests.

The ongoing debates and hesitations regarding Western military support for Ukraine illustrate the Kremlin’s successful implementation of this reflexive control strategy, which has led the West to self-deterrence despite ongoing Russian escalations in the conflict, according to Stepanenko.

This strategy was evident on Thursday when Russia executed a large-scale assault on Ukraine’s power infrastructure. While Putin claimed the attack was a “response from our side” to the Biden administration’s decision regarding longer-range weapons, Russia has historically launched such strikes without needing justification.

The recent shifts in policy from Ukraine’s Western allies—prompted by Russia’s enlistment of approximately 11,000 North Korean troops—should not be misconstrued as an escalation, as the Kremlin would like to suggest, Stepanenko stated.

“Russia initiated an unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine and has consistently escalated the conflict to maintain its battlefield advantage. The endorsement of Ukraine’s use of long-range strike capabilities against Russia is finally enabling Ukraine to balance its military capabilities,” she remarked.

“nonsense policies”

The Biden administration provided Ukraine with US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) earlier this year, imposing stringent conditions on their use. These missiles could target Russian forces in occupied Ukrainian territories but were prohibited from being used against targets within Russia itself.

William Alberque, a former director at NATO’s Arms Control, Disarmament, and WMD Non-Proliferation Centre, criticized this policy as illogical and advantageous to Russia. He explained that by supplying Ukraine with ATACMS while restricting their use to occupied areas, the message conveyed to Russia was essentially, “If you just shift a few meters into your territory, you’re safe.”

Alberque remarked that Russian military leaders must have found this situation fortuitous, noting, “If I establish my command post here, I’m at risk, but just a kilometer away, I’m safe? That’s incredible!”

This policy effectively creates a scenario where Russia can operate freely throughout Ukraine, while Ukraine is limited in its ability to retaliate against Russian forces if they are positioned just across the border. Alberque described this situation as “nonsense.”

Ukraine’s military actions are consistent with the laws of armed conflict. As Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski stated to CNN in September, “A victim of aggression has the right to defend itself, even on the aggressor’s territory.”

Shifting Boundaries

In light of the recent developments, it is easy to overlook that Ukraine has been deploying domestically produced drones against targets deep within Russia for quite some time. Additionally, it has already utilized Western-supplied weaponry against areas that the Kremlin claims as its own. The choice to employ slightly longer-range Western arms represents a difference in degree rather than a fundamental change.

For over a year, Kyiv has been utilizing British Storm Shadows to conduct strikes in Crimea, which has been under Russian control since 2014. Furthermore, for several months, Ukraine has been permitted to launch ATACMS at Russian positions in territories that are occupied. According to Russian law, these areas are considered part of its territory, and Moscow has issued stern warnings about severe repercussions if Ukraine targets them with Western arms.

Since May, the U.S. has also authorized Kyiv to use shorter-range American rockets to hit targets in Russia, specifically across the border from Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region. Prior to President Joe Biden’s approval of this action, Putin had issued similar nuclear threats, cautioning that such a move could result in “serious consequences” for “small and densely populated countries.” However, those consequences did not materialize.

“Time and again, we demonstrate that crossing a fabricated red line results in no significant repercussions,” stated Alberque. Nevertheless, he noted that these threats have been sufficient to deter the West from providing Ukraine with the necessary resources for its defense.

Despite the recent escalation of threats following last week’s events, Albuquerque expressed skepticism about the likelihood of a significant change in the situation. The potential for a Donald Trump administration, which has been widely perceived as favorable to Putin, suggests that Russia is even less inclined than usual to follow through on its threats.

“The likelihood that they will take actions that could provoke direct intervention from the United States or NATO allies – or that would drastically alter global perceptions of the conflict – remains quite low,” Alberque stated.