How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
TT

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)

On 24 February 2022, in a televised speech heralding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin issued what was interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries should they interfere.

“Russia will respond immediately,” he said, “and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

Then on 27 February 2022, Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a “special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.”

Dr. Patricia Lewis, director of the International Security program at Chatham House, wrote in a report that according to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to “combat” allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

She said Putin made stronger nuclear threats in September 2022, following months of violent conflict and gains made by a Ukrainian counterattack.

“He indicated a stretch in Russian nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use from an existential threat to Russia to a threat to its territorial integrity,” Lewis wrote.

In November 2022, according to much later reports, the US and allies detected manoeuvres that suggested Russian nuclear forces were being mobilized.

Lewis said that after a flurry of diplomatic activity, China’s President Xi Jinping stepped in to calm the situation and speak against the use of nuclear weapons.

In September 2024, Putin announced an update of the 2020 Russian nuclear doctrine. The update was published on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use.

According to Lewis, the 2020 doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

On 21 November 2024, Russia attacked Dnipro in Ukraine using a new ballistic missile for the first time.

She said Putin announced the missile as the ‘Oreshnik’, which is understood to be a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile which has a theoretical range of below 5,500km.

Lewis added that Russia has fired conventionally armed nuclear-capable missiles at Ukraine throughout the war, but the Oreshnik is much faster and harder to defend against, and suggests an escalatory intent by Russia.

Nuclear Response During Cold War

In her report, Lewis said that nuclear weapons deterrence was developed in the Cold War primarily on the basis of what was called ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD).

The idea behind MAD is that the horror and destruction from nuclear weapons is enough to deter aggressive action and war, she added.

But the application of deterrence theory to post-cold war realities is far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks and AI, which could interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.

In light of these risks, presidents Biden and Xi issued a joint statement from the 2024 G20 summit affirming the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia exchange information on their strategic, long-range nuclear missiles under the New START agreement – a treaty to reduce and monitor nuclear weapons between the two countries which is set to expire in February 2026.

But, Lewis said, with the US decision to exit the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, there are no longer any agreements between the US and Russia regulating the number or the deployment of ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km.

She said short-range nuclear weapons were withdrawn and put in storage as a result of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives but are not subject to any legal restraints.

The 10th NPT Review Conference was held in 2022 in New York. The issue of nuclear weapons threats and the targeting of nuclear power stations in Ukraine were central to the debate.

Lewis noted that a document was carefully crafted to finely balance concerns about the three pillars of the treaty – non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Russia withdrew its agreement on the last day of the conference, scuppering progress.

“It was believed that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons it would likely be in Ukraine, using short range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that Russia is thought to have more than 1,000 in reserve.

“These would have to be taken from storage and either connected to missiles, placed in bombers, or as shell in artillery,” Lewis wrote.

Increasingly the rhetoric from Russia suggests nuclear threats are a more direct threat to NATO – not only Ukraine – and could refer to longer range, higher yield nuclear weapons.

For example in his 21 September 2022 speech, Putin accused NATO states of nuclear blackmail, referring to alleged “statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.”

Putin added: “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”

There have been no expressed nuclear weapons threats from NATO states.

NATO does rely on nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence and has recently committed to significantly strengthen its longer-term deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The current UK Labor government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to British nuclear weapons – including before the July 2024 election, according to Lewis.

Therefore, she said, any movement to ready and deploy Russian nuclear weapons would be seen and monitored by US and others’ satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022.

Lewis concluded that depending on other intelligence and analysis – and the failure of all diplomatic attempts to dissuade Russia – NATO countries may decide to intervene to prevent launch by bombing storage sites and missile deployment sites in advance.



Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT

Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Georgia has ‌detained two people who attempted to purchase $3 million worth of uranium and a cache of a radioactive isotope found in nuclear weapons testing programs, the national security service said on Thursday.

Two foreign nationals from unspecified countries were arrested in the city of Kutaisi, the State Security Service said in a statement.

"They were planning to ‌illegally purchase ‌nuclear material uranium and radioactive ‌substance ⁠Cesium 137 for $3 ⁠million and illegally transport it to the territory of another country," Reuters quoted it as saying.

It said other foreigners had been arriving in Georgia in recent weeks with the aim of purchasing and transporting the nuclear and ⁠radioactive materials, without elaborating further.

The ‌statement did ‌not specify the quantity of materials the individuals were ‌attempting to procure. There were ‌no details on the substances' origin or potential destination.

Cesium 137 is a radioactive isotope present primarily in the aftermath of nuclear weapons testing ‌and nuclear power plant accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in ⁠then-Soviet ⁠Ukraine in 1986.

The security of nuclear materials was one of the biggest concerns after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, of which Georgia was part. There have been several serious incidents involving the illicit trade in nuclear materials in Georgia over recent decades.

Most recently, three Chinese citizens were arrested in the capital Tbilisi for attempting to purchase two kilograms of "nuclear material" uranium.


Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
TT

Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison for his brief imposition of martial law in a dramatic culmination to the country’s biggest political crisis in decades.

Yoon was ousted from office after a baffling attempt to overcome an opposition-controlled legislature by declaring martial law and sending troops to surround the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 2024, The Associated Press said.

Judge Jee Kui-youn of the Seoul Central District Court said he found Yoon guilty of rebellion for mobilizing military and police forces in an illegal attempt to seize the liberal-led Assembly, arrest politicians and establish unchecked power for a “considerable” time.

Martial law crisis recalled dictatorial past Yoon’s martial law imposition, the first of its kind in more than four decades, harkened back to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed emergency decrees that allowed them to station soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places such as schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

As lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly, Yoon’s martial law command issued a proclamation declaring sweeping powers, including suspending political activities, controlling the media and publications, and allowing arrests without warrants.

The decree lasted about six hours before being lifted after a quorum of lawmakers managed to break through a military blockade and unanimously voted to lift the measure.

Yoon was suspended from office on Dec. 14, 2024, after being impeached by lawmakers and was formally removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. He has been under arrest since last July while facing multiple criminal trials, with the rebellion charge carrying the most severe punishment.

Yoon's lawyers reject conviction Yoon Kap-keun, one of the former president’s lawyers, accused Jee of issuing a “predetermined verdict” based solely on prosecutors’ arguments and said the “rule of law” had collapsed. He said he would discuss whether to appeal with his client and the rest of the legal team.

Yoon Suk Yeol told the court the martial law decree was only meant to raise public awareness of how the liberals were paralyzing state affairs, and that he was prepared to respect lawmakers if they voted against the measure.

Prosecutors said it was clear Yoon was attempting to disable the legislature and prevent lawmakers from lifting the measure through voting, actions that exceeded his constitutional authority even under martial law.

In announcing Yoon and Kim’s verdicts, Jee said the decision to send troops to the National Assembly was key to his determination that the imposition of martial law amounted to rebellion.

“This court finds that the purpose of (Yoon’s) actions was to send troops to the National Assembly, block the Assembly building and arrest key figures, including the National Assembly speaker and the leaders of both the ruling and opposition parties, in order to prevent lawmakers from gathering to deliberate or vote,” Jee said. “It’s sufficiently established that he intended to obstruct or paralyze the Assembly’s activities so that it would be unable to properly perform its functions for a considerable period of time.”

Protesters rally outside court

As Yoon arrived in court, hundreds of police officers watched closely as Yoon supporters rallied outside a judicial complex, their cries rising as the prison bus transporting him drove past. Yoon’s critics gathered nearby, demanding the death penalty.

There were no immediate reports of major clashes following the verdict.

A special prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol, saying his actions posed a threat to the country’s democracy and deserved the most serious punishment available, but most analysts expected a life sentence since the poorly-planned power grab did not result in casualties.

South Korea has not executed a death row inmate since 1997, in what is widely seen as a de facto moratorium on capital punishment amid calls for its abolition.

Other officials sentenced for enforcing martial law

The court also convicted and sentenced several former military and police officials involved in enforcing Yoon’s martial law decree, including ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who received a 30-year jail term for his central role in planning the measure and mobilizing the military.

Last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for resisting arrest, fabricating the martial law proclamation and sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring the measure.

The Seoul Central Court has also convicted two members of Yoon’s Cabinet in other cases. That includes Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year prison sentence for attempting to legitimize the decree by forcing it through a Cabinet Council meeting, falsifying records and lying under oath. Han has appealed the verdict.

Yoon is the first former South Korean president to receive a life sentence since former military dictator Chun Doo-hwan, who was sentenced to death in 1996 for his 1979 coup, a bloody 1980 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju that left more than 200 people dead or missing, and corruption.

The Supreme Court later reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and he was released in late 1997 under a special presidential pardon. He died in 2021.


UK Condemns 10-year Sentence for British Couple in Iran

(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
TT

UK Condemns 10-year Sentence for British Couple in Iran

(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)
(FILES) A handout photograph released in London on August 4, 2025 by the family of Craig and Lindsay Foreman, shows Craig and Lindsay at Naqsh-e Jahan Square, or Shah Square, with the Shah Mosque in the background, in Isfahan, Iran, at an undated time. (Photo by FAMILY HANDOUT / AFP)

British foreign minister Yvette Cooper on Thursday condemned as "totally unjustifiable" the 10-year sentence given to a British couple in Iran for spying, saying the government would continue to press for their release.

Craig and Lindsay Foreman had been charged with espionage after Iran accused them of gathering information in several parts of the country.

"We will pursue this case relentlessly with the Iranian government until we see ‌Craig and Lindsay ‌Foreman safely returned to the UK and reunited with ‌their ⁠family," Reuters quoted Cooper as saying in ⁠a statement.

The Foremans were arrested on January 3 of last year while travelling through Iran on a global motorcycle journey. Iranian state media announced their detention the following month over espionage charges and they have now been held for more than 13 months.

Joe Bennett, Lindsay's son, said in a separate statement the couple had appeared at a three-hour trial ⁠on October 27, in which they were not allowed to ‌present a defense.

"We have seen no ‌evidence to support the charge of espionage," he said, adding that the family ‌was deeply concerned about the couple's welfare and the lack of transparency ‌in the judicial process.

Bennett called on the British government to "act decisively and use every available avenue" to secure their release.

The Iranian embassy in London did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the sentencing.

According to a family ‌statement, the couple have been held for extended periods without being able to communicate. They have had limited or ⁠delayed access ⁠to legal representation, periods of solitary confinement and delays in receiving funds for basic necessities. They also reported disrupted or cancelled consular visits.

Cooper, whose office did not comment on the disruption, said they would continue to provide consular assistance.

Lindsay Foreman has been held in the women's section of Tehran's Evin Prison, while her husband Craig has been held in its political wing.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years detained foreign and dual nationals, typically on espionage or national security charges.

Human rights organizations say the authorities use such arrests as leverage in disputes with other countries, a practice they describe as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated detentions. Tehran has rejected those accusations and said the cases involved legitimate security concerns.