Russian Hawks Demand Nuclear Retaliation After Ukrainian Drone Strikes, By Richard Miller (London)

The recent Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian air bases, targeting nuclear-capable strategic bombers, have ignited a firestorm of outrage among Russia's pro-Kremlin hawks. The attacks, which hit bases thousands of miles from Ukraine's border in regions like Murmansk, Irkutsk, and Ryazan, damaged or destroyed critical aircraft such as the Tu-95 and Tu-22M bombers. While the Kremlin has remained restrained, promising only to await an official investigation, hardline commentators, military bloggers, and state media figures are loudly calling for severe retaliation, some even advocating for nuclear strikes. This blog piece explores the hawkish rhetoric dominating Russian media, the voices urging caution, and the broader implications of these calls for escalation, drawing on Russian-language sources and cross-referencing with reports like CNN's coverage. I am grateful to my Russian speaking wife for digging out most of this material and helping me organise it, but she did not want her name on it, and she said: "Я не хочу, чтобы мое имя было на этом," which was all Greek, I mean Russian, to me!

Hawkish Fury: Calls for Nuclear Strikes

The Ukrainian drone operation, which struck Russia's strategic air bases, has been framed by pro-Kremlin voices as a direct assault on the country's nuclear deterrent. The targeting of bombers integral to Russia's nuclear triad has fuelled demands for a response far beyond conventional measures. Here are the key voices amplifying this narrative:

Two Majors Telegram Channel: With over a million subscribers, this influential pro-war channel labelled the strikes a "direct undermining of the nuclear strategic balance of power" and a blow to Russia's "nuclear security." They argued that the attack provides "a reason to launch nuclear strikes on Ukraine," accusing Kyiv of exploiting Russia's pattern of responding asymmetrically with non-nuclear means. The channel's post suggested that a nuclear response would deter further Ukrainian aggression.

Roman Alekhin: A prominent military blogger, Alekhin likened the drone strikes to "Russia's Pearl Harbor," invoking the 1941 Japanese attack on the U.S. to emphasise the scale of the humiliation. In a Telegram post, he demanded a response as severe as, or harsher than, the U.S.'s retaliation, hinting at nuclear escalation to restore Russia's deterrence.

Vladislav Pozdnyakov: This pro-Kremlin war analyst declared that "disabling strategic aircraft gives Russia the right to use nuclear weapons," citing Russia's nuclear doctrine. The doctrine permits nuclear retaliation for attacks on "critical government or military infrastructure" that disrupt nuclear response capabilities, and Pozdnyakov framed the Ukrainian operation as crossing this legal threshold.

Vladimir Solovyov: A firebrand host on Russian state TV, Solovyov called for nuclear strikes on Kyiv, specifically targeting the Ukrainian presidential office and potentially other sites. He argued that the drone strikes constitute "grounds for a nuclear attack" under Russia's recently updated nuclear doctrine, as reported by CNN.

Rybar Telegram Channel: Linked to Russia's Defense Ministry, Rybar described the attack as a "very sensitive" blow to Russia's nuclear shield, noting that the loss of strategic bombers is "impossible to restore" in the short term. While not explicitly calling for nuclear retaliation, the channel's criticism of Russian authorities for failing to protect these assets has fuelled demands for a strong response.

These voices reflect a broader sentiment among Russian hawks that the drone strikes are not merely a military setback but a symbolic challenge to Russia's great-power status. The reference to Russia's nuclear doctrine underscores their argument that Ukraine's actions could legally justify a nuclear response.

Voices of Restraint

Amid the clamour for escalation, some Russian commentators have urged caution, warning of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear retaliation:

Sergei Markov: A well-known political analyst, Markov cautioned in a social media post that nuclear use would lead to "real political isolation" for Russia. He highlighted the risk of alienating key allies like China and India, as well as provoking a broader international backlash, aligning with concerns raised in the CNN article.

Pavel Podvig: A Geneva-based expert on Russian nuclear forces, speaking on a Meduza podcast, argued that the drone strikes do not meet the threshold for nuclear retaliation. He noted that the operation did not threaten Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity, nor did it significantly impair the broader nuclear triad, which includes land-based missiles and submarines. Podvig's analysis suggests that nuclear escalation remains unlikely despite the hawkish rhetoric.

These voices, though in the minority, underscore the diplomatic and strategic risks of nuclear action, particularly the potential to fracture Russia's already strained international relationships.

Kremlin's Response and Strategic Context

The Kremlin has adopted a restrained stance, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stating that Moscow is awaiting the results of an official investigation. Russian state media, such as RIA Novosti, have downplayed the damage, claiming that only a few aircraft were affected and that air defences repelled attacks in several regions. However, the Defense Ministry acknowledged that "several aircraft caught fire" in Murmansk and Irkutsk, confirming some losses.

The timing of the attacks, just before peace talks in Istanbul, has led hawks to accuse Ukraine of "terrorism" and undermining negotiations. Former President Dmitry Medvedev, for instance, framed the talks as a means to secure Ukrainian capitulation, suggesting that the drone strikes were an attempt to bolster Kyiv's negotiating position. The attacks follow other Ukrainian successes, such as the capture of Russia's Kursk region in 2024 and repeated strikes on the Kerch Bridge, which have further humiliated Moscow.

Why Nuclear Retaliation Remains Unlikely

While hawks cite Russia's nuclear doctrine to justify escalation, several factors suggest that a nuclear response is improbable:

International Fallout: As noted in the CNN article, a nuclear strike would poison relations with allies like China, which has consistently opposed nuclear escalation, and India, while inviting global condemnation and potential military responses from the West.

Strategic Resilience: Analysts like Podvig emphasise that Russia's nuclear triad remains robust, with land-based missiles and submarines unaffected by the drone strikes. The loss of some bombers, while significant, does not critically undermine Russia's nuclear capabilities.

Kremlin's Calculations: The Kremlin's cautious response indicates a preference for conventional retaliation, such as intensified missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities. Former Russian minister Vladimir Milov, cited by CNN, argued that Russia lacks the capacity for a major ground offensive, making airstrikes a more feasible option.

Recent Russian attacks on cities like Kharkiv and Pryluky, which killed civilians, suggest that the Kremlin may opt for "barbaric" conventional strikes, as Milov predicted, rather than crossing the nuclear threshold.

The Ukrainian drone strikes have exposed vulnerabilities in Russia's military infrastructure and intensified pressure on the Kremlin to restore its deterrence. While hawks like Two Majors, Alekhin, Pozdnyakov, and Solovyov push for nuclear retaliation, the Kremlin's restraint and warnings from figures like Markov and Podvig suggest that such an extreme response is unlikely. Instead, Russia is likely to escalate conventional attacks, targeting Ukrainian infrastructure and cities, as it has done throughout the conflict.

The situation remains volatile, however. Ukraine's ability to strike deep into Russian territory, combined with the gradual lifting of Western restrictions on the use of supplied weapons, continues to challenge Moscow's red lines. As the conflict evolves, the balance between hawkish rhetoric and strategic pragmatism will shape Russia's response, and the war's trajectory.

The Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia's strategic air bases have unleashed a wave of fury among pro-Kremlin hawks, with calls for nuclear retaliation dominating Telegram channels and state media. Yet, the Kremlin's measured response and cautions from analysts highlight the immense risks of nuclear escalation. While Russia is likely to intensify conventional attacks, the nuclear option remains a rhetorical tool rather than a practical step, for now.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/04/europe/nuclear-threat-ukraine-russia-latam-intl

"How will Moscow respond to the stunning Ukrainian drone strikes on its fleet of strategic aircraft?

So far, the Kremlin has stayed tight-lipped, saying only that it is waiting for the results of a formal investigation into the attacks, which struck air bases thousands of miles from the Ukraine border.

But fury is being openly vented across the Russia media, with pro-Kremlin pundits and bloggers seething with calls for retribution, even nuclear retaliation.

"This is not just a pretext but a reason to launch nuclear strikes on Ukraine," the prominent "Two Majors" bloggers said on their popular Telegram channel, which has over a million subscribers.

"After the mushroom cloud you can think about who lied, made mistakes and so on," they added, referring to the inevitable Kremlin search for scapegoats for the fiasco.

At least one prominent Russian political analyst, Sergei Markov, urged caution, warning in a social media post that using nuclear weapons would "lead to real political isolation".

Ad Feedback

But popular blogger Alexander Kots demanded Russia should "strike with all our might, regardless of the consequences."

A satellite image appears to show damage to aircraft following a Ukrainian drone attack targeting Russian military airfields in Stepnoy, Irkutsk region, Russia, on Monday.

Capella Space/Handout/Reuters

Of course, Russian hardliners routinely clamor for the nuclear obliteration of Ukraine, while issuing thinly veiled, but ultimately empty threats of Armageddon aimed at the Western allies. The fact they are doing so again, after such a painful series of attacks, is hardly surprising.

But it would be wrong to get too complacent and dismiss all Russian nuclear saber-rattling as mere propaganda.

In fact, there are some worrying reasons to take the slim possibility of a devastating Russian response a little more seriously this time around.

Firstly, several Russian pundits have commented on how Ukraine's destruction of a significant number of Russian strategic nuclear bombers may be interpreted as breaching Moscow's legal nuclear threshold.

The Kremlin's recently updated nuclear doctrine – which sets out conditions for a launch – states that any attack on "critically important" military infrastructure which "disrupts response actions by nuclear forces" could trigger a nuclear retaliation.

The Ukrainian operation was "grounds for a nuclear attack," declared Vladmir Solovyov, a firebrand host on Russian state TV, calling for strikes on the Ukrainian presidential office in Kyiv, and beyond.

Whatever the legality, the barrier for a Russian nuclear response remains mercifully high and such a strike is likely to be dismissed in Kremlin circles as an impractical overkill.

For a start, it would poison relations with key Russian trading partners like China and India, as well as provoke potential military action against Russian forces.

Inevitable mass casualties would be certain to invite universal scorn, further isolating Russia on the international stage.

But here's the problem: the Kremlin may now feel overwhelming pressure to restore deterrence.

It's not just the recent Ukrainian drone strikes, deep inside Russia, that have humiliated Moscow. Shortly afterwards, Ukraine staged yet another bold attack on the strategic Kerch bridge linking Russia with Crimea – the third time the vital road and rail link has been hit.

The capture by Ukrainian forces of the Kursk region in western Russia last year dealt another powerful blow, leaving the Kremlin struggling to liberate its own land. Meanwhile, weekly, if not daily, drone attacks on Russian energy infrastructure and airports continue to cause widespread disruption far from the front lines.

At the same time, Ukraine's allies have been gradually lifting restrictions on the use of Western-supplied arms against Russia, further challenging what were once believed to be Moscow's red lines.

Few doubt the Kremlin is itching to respond decisively, but how?

One former Russian minister told CNN the most likely response by Moscow would be more "barbaric" conventional missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities of the kind that the people of Ukraine have already suffered for years.

"There's no other way to go, because Russia does not have the capacity to launch a massive military offensive. They don't have enough personnel for it," said Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister now living outside of Russia.

"People talk about potential use of nuclear weapons and so on. I don't think this is on the table. But, again, Putin has shown many times that he is resorting to barbarity and revenge."

In other words, highly unlikely, but the nuclear option can't be entirely discounted. This Ukraine conflict has already taken multiple unexpected turns, not least the full-scale Russian invasion itself in 2022.

And while Ukraine and its supporters revel in the stunning successes of recent military operations, poking a humiliated and wounded Russian bear may yield dangerous and frightening consequences."