Photo by Forest Katsch on Unsplash
The test launch of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Base in California on 5 November was aimed not only at verifying the reliability of U.S. strategic deterrent forces, but also carried a political dimension given the current international context.
Although the United States regularly conducts such test launches, this one occurred amid escalating nuclear rhetoric from Moscow. In response to messages from Washington, Russian officials announced plans to start preparations for their own nuclear tests. According to Russian media, relevant instructions have been issued to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, and other security agencies. These statements followed a series of actions that have revived nuclear symbolism in the Kremlin’s political discourse, signalling Moscow’s attempt to use the nuclear issue as leverage over the West, while appealing to the need for a new strategic balance.
The U.S. reaction, however, shows that Washington has no intention of responding to such signals. Unlike demonstrative videos or loud political statements, the U.S. military limited itself to a brief note emphasising the technical nature of the test, itself a political message of restraint and confidence.
Russia’s leadership appears to be reviving a Cold War–era approach: raising the stakes to extract political concessions. Yet history suggests that a strategy of nuclear blackmail yields little success. The Soviet Union, despite having far greater economic and technological potential than today’s Russia, ultimately lost the arms race to the United States. The current situation is even less favourable for Moscow. Russia’s economy is under heavy sanctions, its civilian industry is in decline, and the state budget remains in chronic deficit. Preparing for potential nuclear tests, as Russian officials have announced, would require billions in funding and could further deepen the country’s economic strain.
Simultaneously, Moscow is losing what remains of its international credibility as a predictable player in the global security system. After withdrawing from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and effectively suspending participation in the New START Treaty, any nuclear-related activity by Russia is now regarded as destabilising.
The United States, by contrast, continues to demonstrate the modernity of its strategic systems and the stability of its approach. Although the Minuteman III was initially developed in the 1960s, it has been regularly upgraded and remains a key part of an effective nuclear deterrent. Its test launch serves as a reminder that the size and technological reliability of the U.S. arsenal still offer a clear strategic advantage over Russia. Moscow’s efforts to project symmetry through ambitious claims about new weapon systems, from the Poseidon to the Burevestnik, have yet to be supported by tangible results.
The current escalation does not necessarily have to result in direct confrontation. Instead, it offers an opportunity to re-engage in strategic dialogue between the U.S. and Russia — potentially in a new format that includes other nuclear powers. At a time when both sides show the capacity to escalate militarily, diplomatic channels are essential for preventing uncontrolled situations.
For Europe, the region most vulnerable to the consequences of any nuclear confrontation, restoring the architecture of strategic stability is especially important. Dialogue on arms control, mutual trust, and transparency should be regarded not as a concession, but as a shared safeguard of security for all parties.
