Ukraine’s challenge to Russia’s nuclear posture

Kyiv’s bold attack on Ukraine’s Russia’s strategic nuclear infrastructure shine a light on a dangerous double standard: that nuclear powers can hide behind their arsenals while waging conventional wars with impunity, writes Ilian Vassilev.

Ilian Vassilev is a former Bulgarian ambassador to Moscow, now a media publisher and commentator. His website Alternativata is a content partner of EUalive.

Ukraine has launched strikes against components of Russia’s strategic nuclear infrastructure, targeting bases for strategic bombers, radar installations, and command facilities. These actions were not prompted by fears of an imminent nuclear attack, but by Russia’s ongoing bombardment of Ukrainian civilian targets. For Ukraine, these attacks are not random acts of aggression but well-planned military actions that are strategically justified.

The attacks have placed President Vladimir Putin in an uncomfortable position. He has long cultivated an image of strength and strategic dominance. Ukraine’s actions challenge both that posture and the deterrence value of its nuclear triad. Meanwhile, Putin appears to be weighing his options carefully, avoiding a broader conflict.

Ukraine’s strikes have reportedly damaged up to one-third of Russia’s strategic aviation, which can’t be easily repaired or replaced.

Cornered, Ukraine has taken a step in debunking one of the most deeply entrenched assumptions in global security: that nuclear powers are untouchable. With precision strikes – using drones, missiles, and coordinated deep-penetration operations – Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic infrastructure.

From Kyiv’s perspective, the rationale is simple: Russia’s strategic aviation is actively used to bomb Ukrainian cities. Since launching its full-scale invasion in 2022, Russia has wielded its nuclear arsenal not as a tool of last resort but to dissuade the West from providing Ukraine with support that could ensure a victory.

Western leaders have consistently voiced fears of nuclear escalation. Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, this fear has shaped aid packages and limited strategic support. As a result, Ukraine has received enough to hold the line, but never enough to repel Russian forces.

Meanwhile, many of the missiles targeting Kyiv, Kharkiv, and other cities are launched from strategic bombers stationed deep inside Russian territory.

Moscow has repeatedly warned of “severe consequences” if Ukraine strikes Russian territory or strategic assets. But the threats rang hollow. The question is whether Ukraine is showing that nuclear weapons and threats are no longer important enough to tamper with.

Ukraine’s strikes serve several purposes: to expose Russia’s vulnerability, to decrease Moscow’s ability to conduct long-range strikes via strategic aviation, and to show that Ukraine can act independently even without Western assistance. These are part of a strategy to force the international community to confront the contradictions of nuclear deterrence in the context of modern conventional war.

Rather than undermining global stability, Ukraine’s actions shine a light on a dangerous double standard: that nuclear powers can hide behind their arsenals while waging conventional wars with impunity.

Furthermore, the war is reshaping global understanding of power and deterrence. Despite not possessing nuclear weapons, Ukraine has demonstrated its ability to strike hundreds of kilometers into Russian territory using drones, missiles, and deep-strike operations.

Just as Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was forced to retreat from occupied Crimea, Ukraine’s strikes on strategic aviation bases have exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s nuclear posture.

Western restrictions persist, with the U.S. and its allies continuing to limit Ukraine’s access to advanced systems, such as long-range missiles, that would enable strikes on Russian aircraft within Russian airspace. Despite its disadvantages, Ukraine has innovatively used unconventional tactics to change the dynamics of the war.

Russia’s reaction follows a familiar script: ominous warnings and assertions that Ukraine is endangering “strategic parity.” General Keith Kellogg, an advisor to Donald Trump, warns that Ukraine’s strikes could undermine the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The real danger to global stability does not come from Ukraine’s accurate drone attacks, but from Russia’s use of nuclear weapons to force others to do what it wants.

The belief that nuclear power cannot lose a conventional war has already been disproven—Vietnam and Afghanistan are enduring examples. Yet Russia clings to the notion that nuclear status entitles it to win any conflict, regardless of the means.

There are still concerns that Putin could consider a limited nuclear strike to force the West into retreat. It would not end Ukraine’s resistance, but it would bring the conflict into a defining moment for the international system.

Ukraine’s strategy is not to provoke nuclear escalation but to reject nuclear blackmail. The idea is to reject the belief that those who possess nuclear power have the right to win the war or dictate the terms of peace through threats.

The broader underlying question is whether the world will defend the principle of self-defense or allow nuclear states to crush that principle under the guise of preserving “strategic stability.” What is truly at stake is not just the outcome of one war, but the rules of global order for decades to come.

A longer version of this commentary can be found here.

Caption: A handout satellite image made available by Maxar Technologies shows a Tupolev Tu-22 aircraft destroyed following a series of Ukrainian drone strikes at the Belaya Airbase in Russia, 04 June 2025. Ukraine on 01 June 2025 carried out drone strikes on two Russian air bases. [EPA-EFE/MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES HANDOUT]

Updated: June 11, 2025 - 07:41