Moscow brought up the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine once again. However, deploying such weapons involves several critical factors. First, the weapons must be deliverable, meaning they need to reach their target accurately. Second, the target must be valuable enough to justify the use of such a powerful weapon, ideally causing minimal damage to nearby friendly cities.
The most important thing is that the country launching the attack must be confident that its enemy cannot or will not respond with a nuclear attack. The uncertainty about how the attacked country might respond, the ability of the attacker to survive a counterattack, and whether the initial strike would be devastating enough are significant unknowns.
This uncertainty is a major reason why nuclear weapons have not been used since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons are more about creating fear than actual plans to use them. The main goal is to make the USA and its allies reconsider their support for Ukraine by raising the stakes of the conflict. Despite the repeated threats, Russia has not followed through with a nuclear attack, largely due to the many uncertainties involved.
More interesting is China’s reaction to Russia’s threats. Initially, China maintained a neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict, even abstaining from a United Nations vote condemning the war rather than supporting Russia. However, as the war dragged on and China’s relationship with the USA worsened, China’s position shifted. The need for a strong ally and economic partner became more pressing, and Russia fit this role.
At the same time, Russia began to realize that it would not easily win the war in Ukraine and might not win at all. Like China, Russia’s biggest challenge was the USA. Moscow’s recent nuclear threats are part of a strategy to increase the perceived risks for the USA in supporting Ukraine. The complexity and risks associated with a nuclear strike, combined with the strategic and political dynamics involving China and the USA, highlight why these threats are more about posturing than immediate action. This ongoing situation underscores the complicated balance of power and the high stakes involved in the Ukraine conflict.
An alliance goes beyond just a press release and a handshake, although it is often mistaken as such. It involves real cooperation and the creation of complementary weapons and forces to defeat a common enemy. While there are non-military alliances, every alliance assumes that both sides have, or can obtain, the necessary tools to successfully wage war when needed. The main goal of any alliance is to significantly strengthen a joint force. Many have assumed that Russia and China would form an alliance to challenge or weaken the USA. However, this has not happened. The USA, supported by its NATO allies, posed a land challenge to Russia. In theory, Russia could have used Chinese troops in the Ukraine war, but the distance between the two countries made logistics difficult. Moreover, China’s primary interest was to prevent the USA from blockading its ports or creating a defensive line of islands.
Additionally, China and Russia have a contentious history, marked by numerous invasions and conflicts. After a clash on the Ussuri River, China formed an anti-Russian agreement with the USA in the 1970s, which included an intelligence-gathering post for the USA in China. Given their tense history, it was surprising when, after Russia hinted at using nuclear weapons, China suggested that using them against the USA was reasonable. This created a verbal alliance between the two countries without any real commitment.
China is known to be a nuclear power and U.S. intelligence monitors the situation closely. Therefore, China’s statement did not change the overall dynamics. Speculating on China’s purpose, it seems that Russia might be facing peace talks that President Vladimir Putin has already discussed. China likely does not want to deal with a more confident USA. By temporarily aligning with Russia and mentioning the nuclear option, China aimed to create the perception of a strong alliance with Russia, while also signaling that it does not fully trust the US capabilities.
Alliances are complex and involve much more than simple agreements. They require material cooperation and the ability to create a powerful joint force. The assumed Russia-China alliance to weaken the USA has not materialized, due to logistical challenges and a history of conflict. China’s recent statements about nuclear weapons create a superficial alliance with Russia, mainly as a strategic move to manage the balance of power with the USA. This highlights the complex and often surprising nature of international alliances.
Meanwhile, the economic challenges facing China mean that Beijing is more focused on domestic stability than on aggressive foreign policy moves. Thus, the spectre of a nuclear conflict, while often raised rhetorically by both Russia and China, remains highly unlikely. The severe consequences of nuclear war act as a strong deterrent for all parties involved.
The likelihood of China resorting to nuclear weapons is as low as that of the USA, so there isn’t any urgent need for the USA to form new alliances. Washington is currently satisfied with allowing the conflict in Ukraine to weaken Russia and leaving China to deal with its own economic challenges. The USA already has strong alliances in both Europe and Asia, so it doesn’t need to complicate things by forming new ones. Although Russia and China might wish they had the resources to create a significant alliance, the best they can do is hint at the unlikely possibility of a nuclear attack.
For now, the US strategy is to maintain a balance of power by leveraging its existing alliances. This approach ensures stability without overextending its resources or entangling itself in new, potentially complicated agreements. By letting Russia deplete its strength in Ukraine and allowing China to be preoccupied with its economic issues, the USA can focus on strengthening its existing alliances and managing its own interests.
China’s economic situation is a particular concern for Beijing, diverting its attention and resources internally. Economic growth has slowed, and the country faces significant challenges such as high debt levels, an aging population, and trade tensions. These issues limit China’s ability to project power globally and make it less likely to engage in risky military ventures, including nuclear options.
In the same way, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine has been costly and draining. The conflict has sapped its military and economic resources, leaving it in a weakened position. This situation benefits the US., as a weakened Russia poses less of a threat on the global stage. Moreover, the U.S. does not need to directly confront Russia, as the ongoing conflict in Ukraine serves to keep Russian ambitions in check. In this context, the U.S. benefits from a strategic position where it can manage its adversaries indirectly. By supporting Ukraine, the U.S. helps to ensure that Russia remains bogged down and unable to pose a significant threat beyond its immediate region.
Meanwhile, the economic challenges facing China mean that Beijing is more focused on domestic stability than on aggressive foreign policy moves. Thus, the spectre of a nuclear conflict, while often raised rhetorically by both Russia and China, remains highly unlikely. The severe consequences of nuclear war act as a strong deterrent for all parties involved. For Russia and China, the costs of even suggesting nuclear options outweigh any potential gains, as such actions would lead to severe international backlash and further isolation.