Russian roulette revisited: Does a limited nuclear strike constitute a winning strategy?

When Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in February 2022 that those who interfered in Russia’s war against Ukraine would face consequences “such as you have never seen,” many analysts interpreted the statement as a veiled nuclear threat. Since then, fears that Moscow might employ a so-called “limited” or tactical nuclear strike to coerce the West have loomed large in strategic debates. The logic behind this strategy - often described as “escalate-to-deescalate” - rests on a stark assumption: that a calibrated nuclear detonation would frighten NATO publics into demanding NATO restraint or even appeasement vis-a-via Russia rather than retaliation.

In a new article published in Contemporary Security Policy, Marina Henke (Director), Dino Kolonic (Research Associate) and Felix Lemmer (former Research Associate) at the Hertie School’s Centre for International Security put that assumption to the test. Drawing on four waves of survey experiments conducted in Germany and the United States before and after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they examine a critical question: would Western publics really blink in the face of a Russian limited nuclear strike - or would they demand retaliation instead?  

We sat down with the authors to discuss the motivation behind their research and what their findings mean for nuclear deterrence, European resilience, and the importance of raising the nuclear IQ.

Your paper examines public reactions to a potential Russian tactical nuclear strike - a scenario often described in terms of Russia’s ‘escalate-to-deescalate’ doctrine. What motivated you to pursue this research? 

Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has made continuous nuclear threats. Analysts have spent much time deliberating how Russia might carry out these threats and employ its nuclear arms. Some experts have focused on the “escalate-to-deescalate” strategy, whereby Russia would initiate a limited strike with a tactical nuclear weapon in order to convince NATO that nuclear escalation would follow if the alliance chose not to back down. An underlying assumption of this strategy is that NATO publics, seeing nuclear deployment on European territory, would react with fear and push their governments toward conciliation. 

We sought to test exactly this: how NATO publics would respond in the wake of a Russian tactical nuclear strike. Questions such as whether the public would prefer a conciliatory or retaliatory response, whether attitudes would differ by country, whether casualties would affect those preferences, and whether opinions had shifted since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had remained largely understudied. Filling this gap was academically important, but also policy-relevant.

According to your findings, to what degree does “escalate-to-de-escalate” constitute a winning strategy for Russia? 

Contrary to our expectations, we found that public attitudes in both Germany and the United States favor a retaliatory rather than a conciliatory NATO response to a Russian tactical nuclear strike. In the baseline scenario, 32% of respondents opted for retaliation, while 28% preferred conciliation. When the strike caused NATO fatalities, respondents became even more hawkish: 35% favored retaliation compared to 23% who preferred conciliation. These findings suggest that a limited nuclear strike would not constitute a success for Russia, as large numbers of NATO citizens do not appear to be intimidated in the way the strategy would predict.

Our results also warrant caution, as approximately 40% of respondents expressed uncertainty in this scenario. They did not know what they would want their governments to do, and this segment of undecided publics could potentially be swayed by Russian disinformation in the wake of a strike. Given this, NATO cohesion cannot be taken for granted, as undecided respondents might shift their opinions based on the (dis)information to which they are exposed. Therefore, it is crucial that NATO inoculate its population against Russian disinformation on nuclear weapons through education, transparency, and proactive communication.

You compare public attitudes in Germany and the United States - two NATO members with very different historical relationships to nuclear weapons. What did you learn about transatlantic differences, and how did Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine change public attitudes? 

Despite historical and cultural factors, we observe a notable convergence of views: 33% of US respondents favored a retaliatory response, compared to 30% of German respondents, and 25% of Americans preferred conciliation, compared to 30% of Germans. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine then shifted both publics in the same direction: the invasion increased the odds of opting for a retaliatory response by 15%, while decreasing the odds of a conciliatory response by nearly 22%. These results show that both NATO publics became more hawkish as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, increasing their readiness to demand a retaliatory response from their leaders.

Read the authors’ full study, “Russian Roulette Revisited: Does a Limited Nuclear Strike Constitute a Winning Strategy?” published in Contemporary Security Policy, here: doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2026.2624653

The Hertie School is not responsible for any content linked or referred to from these pages. Views expressed by the author/interviewee may not necessarily reflect the views and values of the Hertie School.