As the world anxiously anticipates a potential breakthrough for peace in Ukraine next week, skepticism prevails. The responsibility lies firmly with Moscow, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio has bluntly articulated, yet there exists a significant chance that Vladimir Putin may choose to escalate the situation further. Currently, the proposed terms for a settlement with Volodymyr Zelensky are severe—requiring concessions of territory, the abandonment of aspirations to join NATO and the European Union, and a compromise of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Should the conflict persist—as even Donald Trump has expressed concern over—it may escalate in intensity. Rather than allowing the horrific scale of violence to continue unchecked along the extensive battlefront, Putin might be tempted to engage in a game of tactical nuclear poker. This has been a longstanding concern among defense officials, as a catastrophic nuclear event—whether accidental or orchestrated, likely disguised as an accident—could compel Zelensky’s government and military to capitulate. Such strategies have been part of the Russian military’s operational playbook for several months now.
Leaky US-NATO Umbrella
Since the inception of the NATO alliance in 1949, European nations have enjoyed the protective cover of the American nuclear umbrella. Following Germany’s entry into NATO in 1955, it was agreed that while American nuclear weapons and systems could be stationed on German territory, German forces themselves would refrain from possessing nuclear arms.
In the current political climate, Trump’s new administration appears less committed to ensuring European security through robust US leadership and funding for NATO. Elbridge Colby, the deputy defense secretary-designate and a key Pentagon advisor, has unequivocally stated that the US cannot sustain its current level of commitment to European security while simultaneously addressing the escalating challenges in the Pacific under the existing budget constraints. Consequently, the Pacific region has become the priority, leading to a perception of a weakened US-NATO protective umbrella.
With Trump’s renewed skepticism towards NATO, troubling discussions have emerged regarding the future of nuclear deterrence in Europe. Pentagon officials have suggested that the crucial Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty—which asserts that an attack against one ally is an attack against all—may no longer be an unconditional obligation, but rather contingent upon the specific circumstances.
Lower Nuclear Threshold
Last year, Russia intentionally leaked revisions to its nuclear doctrine and deployed nuclear units to Belarus, including Iskander intermediate-range missiles and SU-35 bombers, both capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The updated Russian doctrine has notably lowered the threshold for nuclear engagement, stating that an offensive using conventional weapons, if supported by NATO’s nuclear allies, on Russian or Belarusian sovereign territory could warrant a nuclear response.
To date, Russia has not articulated concrete terms for a ceasefire in Ukraine, despite the White House’s assertion that “Moscow desires peace.” At minimum, under vague terms discussed in informal negotiations in Istanbul two years prior, Putin would demand the cession of all territory acquired since February 2022, alongside guarantees of neutrality.
The Kremlin aims to integrate the four oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—currently only partially under Russian control—into the Russian Federation. This creates a clear trigger for a potential nuclear incident, which could be staged as an accident. These four regions lie along the front lines and are likely to remain contested for the foreseeable future. Any attack on these territories could be interpreted as an assault on Russian sovereignty, potentially provoking a tactical nuclear strike through artillery bombardment or ground missiles equipped with nuclear warheads.
All Eyes on Zaporizhzhia
Zaporizhzhia presents a particularly acute risk of nuclear escalation. It houses the largest of Ukraine’s nuclear power facilities—one of only four still operational—and is arguably the largest in Europe. Throughout the ongoing conflict, it has remained a focal point of confrontation. Experts have warned of the possibility of a major contamination incident reminiscent of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, which remains the worst civil nuclear catastrophe in history.
Zaporizhzhia and several other nuclear sites across Ukraine, including those in Russian-occupied Crimea, could serve as the backdrop for a “false flag” operation—an incident instigated by one party’s saboteurs, subsequently blamed on the opposing side. European NATO allies are currently racing to establish their own nuclear deterrent force, independent of Washington and Trump’s influence. This initiative is being spearheaded by France, with support from Denmark, Poland, Germany, and even the UK.
The UK faces challenges, as much of its nuclear arsenal is integrated with that of the US, including joint facilities for Trident submarines in Scotland, a shared command weapons establishment at Aldermaston, and several joint bomber bases in the UK and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Despite these constraints, the UK retains a certain degree of autonomy, and the US relies heavily on British innovation and research and development. Following the Strategic Defence Review and the new UK Strategic Command Structure, anticipated to be unveiled before Easter, a closer partnership with France on nuclear and defense matters may emerge.
These are dire times for Ukraine. Zelensky and his military leaders find themselves engaged in a struggle for survival—not only on the battlefield but also at the negotiating table. Their goal must be to secure the least unfavorable settlement possible. Meanwhile, Moscow projects confidence.
While Russia boasts a formidable force of approximately 630,000 personnel dedicated to the primary theater of operations, these numbers are not unlimited. With current casualty rates reaching 40,000 monthly and evident strains within Russia’s war economy, a tipping point is on the horizon—possibly just months away. So far, the nuclear option remains a card in the Kremlin’s hand, but for how much longer?
In this mounting crisis, the nuclear deterrents of NATO and the Russian Federation are as fragile as a typical parapluie in a force-12 hurricane—yet their implications are far more dire.
