President Donald Trump’s reliance on social media for policymaking is well known, but the use of his Truth Social platform to announce an apparent change in America’s nuclear posture was a first even for him. On Friday, responding to threats from Russia’s former President Dmitri Medvedev, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he had ordered two US nuclear submarines to be “positioned in the appropriate regions”. He added: ‘Just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'”.

Trump may hope that this decision increases his leverage with Moscow as his administration continues to press for peace in Ukraine. But his threat is ultimately unlikely to achieve this objective. Instead, it amounts to a risky provocation that works against efforts to end the war in Ukraine, makes America less secure, and leaves Trump looking weak rather than strong.

Trump’s Truth Social post left unanswered questions — which submarines was he referring to, and what moves did he supposedly order? In reality, there were likely few, if any, changes to US nuclear readiness or undersea deployments. America has a fleet of 14 nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, of which four or five are on “hard alert” at all times. These don’t need to be relocated to maintain strike readiness. They can hit targets from thousands of miles away and though their locations are classified, it is a safe assumption that several are already prepared to hit Russia if ordered to do so.

The US also has nuclear-powered attack submarines that are armed with conventional weapons. Dozens of these are constantly patrolling waters around the globe. They too are likely positioned to strike Russian assets — its submarines, naval vessels, and merchant ships, including the infamous ghost fleet. In other words, Trump’s online warning was likely a performative one since there are no real implications for US posture or deterrence.

That does not mean the US President’s words were inconsequential. By invoking the US nuclear arsenal in explicit terms, Trump thrust nuclear tensions back to the forefront of US-Russia relations. Even if no US submarines were repositioned, his statements are still destabilising and unnecessarily increase the risk of unintended escalation between the two powers.

Trump’s attempts at intimidation are also counterproductive and work against key priorities of his administration, including efforts to improve US-Russia relations and end the war in Ukraine. Threatening a nuclear strike certainly will not make it easier to open stronger diplomatic channels between Washington and Moscow. If anything, the Russian leader may be less interested in negotiating after Trump’s latest outburst and wait until Washington is in a more accommodating mood.

Trump may believe that his aggressive response to Medvedev’s taunting makes him look strong and decisive but the opposite is true. That the president of the United States felt compelled to respond so emphatically to Medvedev, now largely a Russian political outlier and online provocateur, makes Trump look weak and impulsive while boosting Medvedev’s profile. He would have helped himself more by not responding.

Most likely, cooler heads will prevail, and Russia and the United States will step back from the brink before this incident leads to a more serious or catastrophic outcome. Still, the online nuclear scuffle underscores why the US must end its entanglement in Ukraine — and soon. The conflict, at the heart of Trump and Medvedev’s dispute, is not of existential importance for the United States and is certainly not worth a nuclear confrontation with Russia. But as long as the US stays engaged, the risk of escalation remains.

Peace offers one exit pathway, but the Trump administration can also simply walk away. Some fear sunk costs or lost face from such a move, but either is infinitely preferable to a nuclear war.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---