Why Russia Is Unlikely to Use Nuclear Weapons Even When Cornered
Analysts argue that despite Moscow’s repeated nuclear threats, history shows nuclear-armed states rarely resort to atomic strikes when faced with defeat, and Ukraine’s continued operations have not pushed Russia over the brink.
Western debates over aid to Ukraine often invoke the specter of a nuclear-armed Russia resorting to atomic weapons if it faces a losing war, a concern voiced by figures like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. While Russia officially lowered the trigger for nuclear use in 2024, Kyiv has repeatedly ignored Moscow’s red lines, launching drone and missile strikes deep inside Russian territory with both domestic and Western arms.
Historical precedents—France in Algeria, the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and China in Vietnam—show that nuclear powers have endured costly defeats without breaking the long-standing taboo against nuclear escalation. This informal global norm, cultivated since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, renders actual nuclear use strategically and morally untenable for Russia unless it perceives a decisive victory.
Scholars such as Mariana Budjeryn argue that a winning Russia might consider a nuclear strike to accelerate victory, but the likely international backlash would outweigh any short-term gain. The analysis concludes that Western policy should be guided by solidarity with Ukraine and the preservation of international order, not by exaggerated fears of a nuclear flashpoint.
Why it matters
Understanding why nuclear use is unlikely helps shape realistic support for Ukraine and avoids policy paralysis.
In this story
