August 4, 2025

Institute for the Study of War:  Russia discounts Trump’s response to Kremlin nuclear saber-rattling

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin officials are slowly organizing a coordinated response to US President Donald Trump’s August 1 statement that the United States would redeploy two nuclear submarines closer to Russia. The Kremlin did not immediately employ a coordinated response on August 2 and 3 following Trump’s initial announcement, but more Kremlin officials began to coalesce around similar rhetorical lines on August 4.[1] Kremlin officials utilized three main framings to respond to Trump’s decision to redeploy the submarines — posing Trump’s decision to redeploy the submarines as “emotional,” discounting the threat that this decision poses to Russia, and posturing Russia as a more responsible international actor than the United States. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on August 4 that discussions of nuclear escalation are premature and a “very emotional” perception of the situation.[2] Peskov claimed that Russia is “very careful” about any statements related to nuclear issues and that Russia takes a “responsible position” in regard to nuclear rhetoric.[3] Russian Federation Council Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairperson Grigory Karasin responded to Trump by claiming that it is always better to be less emotional and more rational in foreign policy.[4] Russian State Duma Deputy Mikhail Matveev also characterized Trump as “emotional” in response to Trump’s August 1 statement.[5] Russian State Duma Deputy Viktor Volodatsky claimed that Trump is attempting to intimidate Russia, but that the redeployment of US nuclear submarines near Russia is not a real threat to Russia, and Russian Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov similarly claimed that Trump is mistaken if he assesses that this redeployment will scare Russia.[6] Dzhabarov claimed that Russia is not threatening anyone.

These official Russian responses ignore the Kremlin’s history of frequently leveraging nuclear saber-rattling to push the West to make decisions that benefit Russia. Trump explicitly acknowledged on August 1 that he redeployed the submarines in response to Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev’s July 31 nuclear threats.[7] Medvedev alluded on July 31 to Russia’s automatic or semi-automatic nuclear weapons control system, referred to as the “Dead Hand” or the “Perimeter.”[8] The Kremlin regularly uses Medvedev to introduce nuclear threats into the Russian and international information spaces, but more senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, also often make similar vague allusions to Russia’s nuclear weapons capabilities.[9] Putin has routinely invoked Russia’s Oreshnik ballistic missile system to allude to the possibility that Russia could conduct a nuclear strike against the West, and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed during a media engagement with Putin on August 1 that Trump cannot dictate rules to a nuclear power like Russia.[10]

The Kremlin also responded to Trump’s August 1 announcement by trying to downplay Medvedev’s role in Russian decision-making in order to obfuscate the role Medvedev plays in Putin’s information efforts targeting the West. Peskov claimed on August 4 that Russian officials, including Medvedev, have different assessments on current events but that Russian President Vladimir Putin alone determines Russia’s foreign policy.[11] Peskov claimed that Putin’s position is the “main thing” of import. Peskov’s attempt to separate Medvedev’s views from Putin’s ignores the way that Putin and other high-level officials in Putin’s inner circle have themselves frequently used similar nuclear saber-rattling to threaten the West.[12] Medvedev himself does not drive Russian foreign policy decisions, but ISW continues to assess that his statements are very likely part of a top-down, concerted Kremlin informational strategy.[13] Putin would be able to censor Medvedev’s statements if he chose to do so, especially considering the Kremlin’s demonstrated ability to coordinate official statements and overall grip on the Russian information space, internet, and media. Medvedev’s aggressive statements serve a specific purpose for Putin, however, as they push the West to see Putin’s statements as more moderate and rational by comparison and create space for Putin to make greater demands or larger threats. Peskov’s August 4 claims are trying to conceal the way that the Kremlin is likely approving and encouraging Medvedev’s use of his platforms to make statements against the West.

Key Takeaways:

  • Kremlin officials are slowly organizing a coordinated response to US President Donald Trump’s August 1 statement that the United States would redeploy two nuclear submarines closer to Russia.
  • The Kremlin also responded to Trump’s August 1 announcement by trying to downplay Medvedev’s role in Russian decision-making in order to obfuscate the role Medvedev plays in Putin’s information efforts targeting the West.
  • Russian authorities continue to intensify the use of bribery charges, including to scapegoat regional government officials responsible for Russia’s border defense and target defense industry officials and critical information space actors.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Toretsk, and Velykomykhailivka.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.