Deep Intel: Putin ‘Giving Thought (Again) to Using Nukes in Ukraine’

According to Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitskyi, the Russians are “thinking about it in detail.”

Russian Ministry of Defense. Used without permission because fuck those guys.

Russia’s nuclear threats aren’t new, but they’ve entered a darker phase. After rejecting President Donald Trump’s 50-day ceasefire ultimatum, Moscow’s rhetoric is sounding more desperate than defiant.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov all but sneered at the proposal, calling ultimatums “unacceptable,” while continuing to lob missiles into Ukrainian cities. This hardline stance has analysts whispering what many hoped we’d never have to consider again: tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield.

Sounds like speculation. Unfortunately, it’s not.

Former UK WMD expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon didn’t mince words in his recent op-ed. He warned that the very essence of nuclear deterrence, mutual assured destruction, is now compromised. Trump’s erratic commentary on NATO, Europe, and US involvement may have signaled to the Kremlin that the Western alliance would hesitate or even fold in the face of a nuclear escalation.

And that, more than anything, could embolden Putin to try something unthinkable.

According to Ukraine’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Vadym Skibitskyi, the Russians are “thinking about it in detail.” The military pressure is mounting, the frontlines are shifting, and Putin's domestic standing is precarious.

That’s the toxic cocktail where nuclear saber-rattling becomes an actual plan.

Meanwhile, in a not-so-subtle flex, Trump has reminded the world, on tape, that he once told Putin, “If you go into Ukraine, I’m going to bomb the s*** out of Moscow.”

Putin obviously called his bluff.

Intelligence chatter suggests that Washington is watching for real signs, not just rhetoric. Among those: increased movement at Russian nuclear storage sites, shifts in troop protective gear indicating NBC readiness, or even diplomatic quiet before the storm.

The concern inside the Pentagon isn’t just that Putin could use a low-yield tactical nuke; it’s that he may genuinely believe he can get away with it before Trump’s 50-day window shuts.

The strategy, if you can call it that, is “escalate to de-escalate.”

Shock the West with one massive, headline-grabbing tactical nuclear strike; maybe on a remote Ukrainian military outpost or even offshore in the Black Sea. Then force the world to the table under the shadow of radioactive fallout.

It's calculated, it's chilling, and it’s been part of Russian military doctrine since the early 2000s.

Worse, if Putin sees that the US response is fragmented (which is almost guaranteed), and if Europe is unsure, if Trump waffles, if NATO can’t reach consensus, he might interpret that as a green light.

That's why this moment matters.

The combination of battlefield setbacks, international pressure, and perceived Western indecision is the exact mix that could push Putin to make the most dangerous decision of his life, and ours.

True, Putin has made some progress in May and June. The UK MoD estimates that Russia seized approximately 550 square kilometers of Ukrainian territory in June. But at the macro scale, zoomed out, the “largest military force in Europe” has practically stalled out in the East, having barely shifted the lines in three years.

Besides, these kilometers represent mostly rural areas. Russia still struggles to take real cities and towns without absorbing massive casualties.

So, what should we watch for if Putin decides to use a tactical nuclear weapon?

There will be signs

There’s a phrase in the Pentagon that gets thrown around in classified briefings: “Indications and warnings.” It’s code for knowing when something bad, truly catastrophic, is about to happen. And when it comes to Russia and nuclear weapons, the signs are rarely subtle if you know what to look for.

I’ve spoken to people inside the building, and the vibe is different. Edgier. The kind of nervousness where you start canceling dinner plans and keeping your phone on loud overnight. This is on top of the “Hegseth effect” that the Pentagon is already feeling.

So how does the US prepare for a scenario that involves a mushroom cloud over Ukraine?

First up: the E-4B “Doomsday” planes. These are heavily modified Boeing 747-200s designed to keep the US government running in the middle of a full-scale nuclear war. Think flying war rooms, with satellite uplinks, hardened electronics, and a secure communications suite capable of talking to every branch of the military simultaneously.

There are only four of them, and if more than one is airborne at once, you know the DEFCON levels are quietly creeping upward. They’re housed at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, under the 595th Command and Control Group. Normally, you can spot them on training runs on a flight tracker, but in an actual nuclear readiness surge, they will go dark, completely off civilian radars.

Then there’s the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber fleet. If those start showing up in Britain at RAF Fairford, it’s not because someone over there suddenly wants stealth airshows.

It’s because they’re staging for possible long-range missions. Even more ominous would be the deployment of the WC-135R “nuke-sniffing” aircraft. This platform literally flies through radioactive clouds to analyze nuclear debris in the air.

You don’t send that bird up unless you expect something to go boom.

On the water, the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines operate in a state of permanent readiness, with two subs always lurking in the Atlantic or Arctic. But a sudden burst of activity at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, especially the rapid departure of additional boats, would indicate the Pentagon is padding its strategic buffer.

One of the more telling indicators, though, is what doesn’t happen.

The Biden administration had deliberately kept US nuclear forces at a relatively relaxed posture throughout the war. Trump is doing the same.

So, if you start seeing the military tightening up, scrambling assets, or moving into hardened command centers like Cheyenne Mountain or Raven Rock, it’s time to pay attention.

And don’t expect the White House to hold a press conference about any of this.

The first real sign would likely be buried in a cryptic post on the Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook group. Yes, really. Enlisted aviators are not subtle, and if they’re suddenly working 18-hour shifts with no explanation, someone’s radar is lighting up.

If the US believes a Russian nuclear strike is truly imminent, we’ll also see the gears of continuity of government grind into motion.

The Vice President and senior congressional leadership might suddenly disappear from public view. Scheduled appearances would quietly vanish. Ideally, Trump himself would stay at the White House, symbolically holding the line, like Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although ‘even money’ he flees to Mar A Lago.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, diplomatic warning flares would be going up. The US would start publicly warning the world about Putin’s intentions, just like they did ahead of the full-scale invasion in 2022. But this time, the messaging wouldn’t be just for CNN viewers. It would be aimed directly at the Russian military. That’s the chess move: tell Russian generals, colonels, and missile crews that if they follow a launch order, they will be held personally accountable. Not metaphorically. Not institutionally. Personally.

That message would be carried through every available channel, open-source, secure military-to-military, even backdoor diplomatic relays through third parties like Turkey, Israel, or India. It’s less about Putin, who may not care, and more about making his subordinates blink when the time comes to turn the keys.

Even more telling would be the United States quietly sharing sensitive intelligence with China.

Yes, with China.

Just enough to show Xi Jinping that Russia is about to make a move that could crash the global order and tank the European economy. If you see Beijing issue a warning to Moscow about nuclear use, that’s not a diplomatic coincidence. That’s a five-alarm fire.

And then there’s the classic Putin move: the false flag.

Historically, when Putin needs a justification for extreme action, someone on Russian soil ends up dead under mysterious circumstances. If a moderate-casualty event occurs near Moscow or in one of the more “patriotic” regions, followed by immediate finger-pointing at Ukraine, it’s probably not what it seems.

The Dugina car bombing last year raised eyebrows for exactly this reason. False flags are a feature, not a bug, in Russian military strategy.

Another chilling sign would be Russian soldiers suddenly kitted out with NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) gear, particularly those in occupied Ukrainian territories. Granted, this is the same army that let conscripts dig trenches in irradiated Chernobyl soil. But still, if commanders suddenly start pretending to care about troop survivability in a contaminated zone, that’s a flashing red light.

Finally, watch Putin himself. If his rhetoric shifts from the usual “denazify Ukraine” stuff to open threats of annihilation and “unprecedented consequences,” in messages meant for the Russian people, he’s not just signaling strength; he’s prepping the domestic political space. He’s laying the groundwork for a shock-and-awe moment he thinks the West will blink at.

The signs are there, if you know what to look for. And if they all start flashing at once? Buckle up. The Cold War might be coming out of retirement.

If Putin Drops a Nuke: What Trump’s Options Look Like

Let’s not sugarcoat it. If Vladimir Putin fires a tactical nuclear weapon into Ukraine, say, a 5-kiloton warhead lobbed from an Iskander missile into a deserted field or the Black Sea, it’s a geopolitical seismic event.

The idea is simple: drop a nuke, freeze the conflict. Make the West second-guess every next move while Putin scrambles to hold onto territory. It’s not rational, but it’s not implausible either.

So, what does the US, and specifically President Trump, do if Putin decides to light the nuclear fuse?

Let’s walk through the big options. None of them are great. But some are better than others.

Option 1: Do Nothing… Except Yell Really Loudly

This is the “strategic patience” path, also known as “hope China fixes this.”

Trump could opt to fire off a flurry of strongly worded tweets (or whatever platform he’s calling home that week), denounce Putin as a madman, and call the nuke a "red line." But take no military action. No retaliation. No new deployments.

The upside? No escalation. The downside? Nuclear deterrence collapses. Every rogue state takes notes. China eyes Taiwan a little differently. And Trump gets praised for “avoiding World War III” by his supporters.

Oh, and this assumes Beijing turns on Moscow, not guaranteed. Xi might see weakness and make his own moves in the Pacific.

Option 2: Limited Response, Unconventional Warfare, and the No-Fly Sledgehammer

Now we’re talking gloves off but not boots on the ground.

Trump could greenlight a massive influx of US Navy assets into the Black Sea, minus aircraft carriers, thanks to the Montreux Convention, which still thinks it’s 1936. But destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and missile platforms? Fair game.

Then there’s the no-fly zone option over Ukraine, a move that screams “this is war now,” without technically being war. Expect US and NATO aircraft patrolling skies and shooting down anything Russian that dares to poke its nose into Ukrainian airspace.

On the covert side, you’d see Special Operations Forces quietly roll in under the banner of WMD counterproliferation. They wouldn’t just be looking for leftover nuclear components; they’d be blowing up ammo depots, hacking command centers, and lighting up Russian airfields with drone swarms.

Trump, true to form, might keep it deniable. Or he might live-stream it. Hard to say.

Option 3: The Gloves Come Off: NATO Enters the War

This is the full-on Article 5-adjacent option. Trump orders a direct military response. And no, that doesn’t mean nukes in return. The US doesn’t need them to level Russian forces in Ukraine.

Instead, you’d likely see precision strikes on the Russian unit that launched the nuke: command centers, mobile launchers, and the Kremlin’s prize assets in the Black Sea.

The Black Sea Fleet? Gone. Overnight. Crimea? Suddenly very lonely.

You might also see forward NATO deployments from Poland and the Baltics punch through Belarus or eastern Ukraine to backstop the Ukrainian military. US cyber command would wreck Russian logistics, banking systems, and communications, all while holding strategic bombers in reserve.

Basically, Putin gets what he fears most: US boots in the fight, and no off-ramp that doesn’t end with regime change or a lot of mushroom clouds.

As Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon Russia hand, once put it: “If Putin uses nukes in Ukraine, he will be signing the execution order on his own regime change.” And this time, she’d probably be right.

The 2022 Near Miss: When We Almost Saw This Play Out

If all of this sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Back in late 2022, US intelligence was sweating bullets.

My own sources were saying the threat was real, not theoretical. The Kerch Strait Bridge had just been blasted. Russian long-range bombers were under drone assault. Ukraine was clawing back territory like it was going out of style.

Inside the West Wing, the National Security Council started gaming out exactly this nightmare scenario. What if Putin actually did it? What if he pushed the button?

We now know from CNN’s Jim Sciutto that the US was prepping for that moment; not just issuing statements, but moving assets, retooling war plans, and building playbooks for every contingency from false-flag detonations to battlefield mushroom clouds.

And some US officials took comfort in the idea that Russia might only use a “tactical” nuke, as if a radioactive wasteland 100 miles wide is somehow less horrifying. Let’s be honest: the difference between a 5-kiloton battlefield nuke and a 15-kiloton Hiroshima-style bomb is a rounding error when you’re vaporizing a city block.

In the end, it was India’s Modi and China’s Xi who talked Putin off the ledge.

Not NATO.

Not the U.N.

Two autocrats had to convince the third not to break the nuclear taboo. That’s the kind of world we’re living in now.

Whatever happens, let’s be crystal clear: the Cold War didn’t really end. It just cooled off long enough for Putin to build palaces, consolidate power, and convince himself that he’s the next Peter the Great.

Now we’re back in it. And the next move could change everything.

Слава Україні.