At the end of July, the world witnessed a new turning point in the Ukrainian crisis when Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, publicly brandished the Dead Hand system, one of the most controversial nuclear deterrents since the Cold War.
This gesture came in response to US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a deadline for halting Russian operations.
The very next day, Trump pursued a reciprocal escalation by announcing that he had ordered two nuclear submarines to move into areas near the Russian border, a step that sparked wide debate over whether it reflected an operational decision or merely a calculated political message.
In my view, this interaction between the Russian threat and the American counter was not a passing media stunt but a clear return to the policy of nuclear terror many thought the world had left behind at the end of the Cold War.
The messages exchanged were less a show of force than a deliberate effort to impose a new rhythm on the Ukraine crisis, since both sides recognize that the battlefield alone is no longer the sole theater of conflict. Indeed, the war of nerves has now become the first line of defense.
The Dead Hand system first emerged in the public eye in the 1980s, as an automatic retaliation mechanism, guaranteeing a nuclear strike even if Russia’s leadership were destroyed. For decades, it remained shrouded in secrecy, inspiring more dread than it actually revealed.
Medvedev knows perfectly well that simply alluding to this system forces Washington and its Western allies to recalculate, especially at a moment when tight deadlines and stringent commitments have squeezed Moscow’s political space.
On the other side, Trump’s decision to reposition submarines was laden with political meaning. These vessels, which form the backbone of the US nuclear triad, were never absent from international waters, and announcing their redeployment affirmed political will, rather than altering the balance of power.
Trump meant to tell both Moscow and his domestic audience that the Russian move would not go unanswered. To some, it could have appeared to be an escalation, but it was also an attempt to ward off accusations of hesitation amid mounting internal and external pressure.
What truly alarms in this episode is not so much the threats themselves as the new style of managing them. Bringing nuclear rhetoric into the open and turning it into daily content on social media reveals the weakness of back-channel communications – and makes every word a public calculation.
Where the danger lies
The danger lies here: When public opinion is drawn into the balance of power, leaders become harder-edged and less willing to compromise, as reversing a declared position amounts to political defeat.
Worse still, modern military technology has dramatically shortened decision-making timelines and heightened the risk of miscalculation.
In a complex, interconnected world, it takes only a misread message or a malfunctioning warning system for the great powers to find themselves in an unintended confrontation.
History has recorded close calls, from the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 to false alarms in the 1980s, but today’s reality is far more fragile and intricate.
In my opinion, what we are witnessing is not a brief flare-up of tension but a stark warning that the world lacks even the most basic mechanisms for managing major disputes.
When nuclear powers resort to brandishing their arsenals in the 21st century, it signals a monumental failure of traditional diplomacy, one whose price will be high unless it is addressed with urgency. Deterrence no longer rests solely on mutual destruction but on each side’s ability to discern the other’s intentions, and that ability erodes over time.
The crisis compels the great powers to rethink the international order, revive hotlines, and establish clear procedures for handling nuclear emergencies away from the glare of public view. If they do not, the world will remain trapped in a perilous game where a single miscalculation or simple misunderstanding could ignite an unintentional confrontation.
The clearest lesson here is that power alone, however vast, cannot substitute for reason and wisdom. No nuclear submarines and no overt threats can deliver real security without reliable channels of dialogue. If the recent Dead Hand episode has revealed anything, it is that global stability has grown so fragile that everyone, without exception, must return to the language of understanding before it is too late.
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.