Trump's Nuclear Rhetoric: Political Tactic or Genuine Threat?

Trump's Nuclear Rhetoric: A Political Gambit?

It's somewhat undignified for a U.S. president to be baited into issuing nuclear threats by a minor Russian official on social media. But that is precisely what former President Donald Trump has done. Last week, he ordered two U.S. nuclear submarines to redeploy, seemingly rattled by Dmitry Medvedev’s empty displays of force. Medvedev, the outspoken but largely sidelined former Russian president, has reinvented himself in recent years as a fierce anti-Western critic. In a series of bombastic social media posts, Medvedev slammed Trump’s soon-to-expire Russian-Ukraine peace deal ultimatum, claiming every ultimatum is “a step towards war” – not between Russia and Ukraine, but with the U.S. The U.S. president should remember “how dangerous the legendary ‘Dead Hand’ is,” Medvedev wrote, provocatively referencing the Soviet-era automatic nuclear retaliation system -- which could automatically launch intercontinental ballistic missiles if a nuclear strike is detected. Sen. Marco Rubio downplayed Trump’s recent remarks, pointing out that Medvedev is no longer a decision-maker in Moscow. Many Russians share the same view: in their eyes, Medvedev is politically irrelevant, wielding little to no power, let alone the ability to launch a nuclear strike. This begs the question: why is Trump bothering to address what he himself calls “foolish” statements, with a public response so forceful that it escalates the war of words between Washington and Moscow? One possible answer is that this is a convenient way for Trump to project a tough stance on Russia – by picking on a public figure derisively referred to in Russia as “Little Dima” (due to his small stature), without directly confronting the Kremlin or Russian President Vladimir Putin, and without actually altering America's nuclear posture. Trump said he ordered two nuclear submarines to be “deployed to the appropriate area” in case Medvedev’s “foolish and inflammatory statements” turn out to be more than just talk. But the reality is that dozens of U.S. nuclear submarines carrying hundreds of nuclear warheads patrol the oceans around the world every day. Considering their missiles have a range of thousands of miles, plus Russia’s vast size, redeployment is unlikely to significantly impact their ability to strike Russian targets. However, as always, timing is everything. Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, doubling as an interim Russia mediator, is due to hold more talks with the Russian leadership in the coming days. With Trump’s self-imposed deadline looming – by which Russia will face stiff tariffs if it doesn’t agree to a Ukraine peace deal – Witkoff may again press for a ceasefire. The reality is that almost no one expects the Kremlin to budge – it has stubbornly insisted on achieving its stated military objectives first before ending the conflict in Ukraine. The latest escalation in nuclear rhetoric is unlikely to change this hardline position. Likewise, as Trump weighs (and possibly backs away from) the potentially self-damaging impact of secondary sanctions on countries such as India that buy Russian oil (which he has threatened), the veneer of “upping nuclear readiness” may be a useful distraction tool. Indeed, diverting attention from mounting domestic political problems may be a “bonus” of escalating nuclear rhetoric. Mentioning heightened nuclear readiness toward Russia (which possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal) may overshadow more trivial domestic affairs, such as the Epstein scandal. Of course, any mention of nuclear escalation between the world’s nuclear superpowers should trigger high alert. Still, while the overall relationship between Washington and Moscow may have tightened again, it is far from a nuclear showdown.