Home › Analysis › Trump’s Nuclear Threats To Russia Spark Fears Of Atomic War

Trump’s Nuclear Threats To Russia Spark Fears Of Atomic War

By Editor on 6th August 2025 • ( 0 )

Trump’s Nuclear Threats To Russia Spark Fears Of Atomic War

Donald Trump’s revelation that he ordered nuclear submarines closer to Russia has ignited a new phase in US-Russia tensions, which drew warnings even from hawks like John Bolton. So much for the President’s “peace-making” profile.

In an incendiary announcement on August 1, US President Donald Trump revealed on social media that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to Russian territory, allegedly in response to what he called “highly provocative” remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Kremlin, through spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, quickly distanced President Vladimir Putin from Medvedev’s language.

This development marks a new and dangerous chapter in US-Russia tensions — one that even arch-hawk John Bolton matter-of-factly described as “very risky business”. Suffice to say, when even Bolton sounds the alarm, the risk is real enough.

The situation is all the more volatile due to the nature of Trump’s announcement. He posted it on Truth Social — thereby bypassing official communication channels and protocols — claiming his nuclear submarines were already “in position.” While some speculated he was bluffing, a Navy expert has confirmed such a deployment is plausible, describing the move as “unusual” but “clever,” precisely because it is not publicly verifiable. Still, no wonder critics were quick to remind us that “moving nuclear subs isn’t something you announce on social media”.

Indeed, as a Wall Street Journal headline warned, “rash words can be risky in the nuclear era”. Trump’s impulsive online provocation reflects not only recklessness but a deeper crisis in the strategic culture of the US national security state.

In response, Moscow made a significant countermove: President Putin declared that Russia is no longer bound by a key missile treaty, fueling renewed fears of a global arms race. Whether or not this is a direct reply to Trump’s submarine manoeuvre, the timing is unmistakable — and the implications grim. Combined, Russia and the US hold 87% of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Thus far, Trump’s campaign has pivoted sharply from its initial promises of de-escalation and diplomacy. He now openly threatens Russia with sanctions and sabre-rattling if no ceasefire is reached in Ukraine by August 8. So much for the “peace candidate.”

As a matter of fact, Trump’s “peace” branding has always been overstated, to say the least. As I noted back in March 2024, it was under his presidency (2017-2021) that the CIA expanded its covert presence in Ukraine, supporting twelve secret intelligence outposts along the Russian border. In December 2017, Trump approved the sale of “defensive” weapons to Kyiv, which Professor John Mearsheimer argued were perceived as offensive enough by Moscow. These are not the actions of a peacemaker in any way.

Likewise, Trump’s so-called “isolationism” must be taken with a grain of salt. One may recall that he infamously ordered the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, and, more recently, in March 2024, declared that Israel must “finish the problem” in Gaza. He also promoted the Abraham Accords, which, while drawing praise, have intensified tensions across the Middle East and North Africa. Trump may (usually) prefer economic warfare and symbolic gestures to full invasions, but he is no anti-imperialist hero.

If Biden, for his part, crossed multiple red lines by supporting controversial Ukrainian operations and intensifying NATO’s eastward posture — as exemplified by the 2021 US-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Charter among many other things —Trump has now gone much farther, in an unprecedented way. By injecting nuclear threats into the discourse, and doing so via social media, he has brought the world closer than ever to catastrophic miscalculation.

Even more troubling is 79-year-old Trump’s descent into personal feuding with figures like Medvedev, turning global strategy into a playground for his ego battles. In light of this, his cognitive stability must in fact also be called into question — just as critics rightly scrutinized former President Biden’s own mental fitness at the time.

Trump’s impulsive excesses aside, the broader truth is this: US foreign policy remains largely on autopilot. As Michael J. Glennon argued in his 2014 book “National Security and Double Government”, real power lies not with elected officials but within an entrenched, unaccountable security bureaucracy (that some call “Deep State”). This self-governing defence apparatus ensures that, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, the underlying logic of aggressive US hegemony persists. Trump’s recklessness, therefore, is not a complete aberration — but it is a dangerously exaggerated version of that institutional momentum.

It would seem pressures from the defence sector and the “Deep State” (that Trump claims to be at war with) were too much for the American President and now he is not only reversing course but even overreaching.

Be as it may, the centre of global conflict has already begun to shift. Ukraine arguably is no longer the focal point — it is now but one arena in a larger US-Russia confrontation (which also includes the Arctic region). The reality is that nuclear brinkmanship has returned, this time “broadcast” live on social media.

In conclusion, Trump’s decision to announce the movement of nuclear submarines — thereby escalating an already volatile situation — reflects not strategy but hubris. This is way beyond “madman theory”. Thus far, the American leader has shown neither the judgment nor the restraint required to handle crises of this magnitude. The fantasy of Trump as an “isolationist” principled “peace broker” thus collapses under the weight of reality. And this is bad news for global security.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.