Has NATO recently threatened to nuke Russia?

Question

In his 2022-09-21 speech (archived copy with https here), Putin referred to

statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.

I've looked for such statements (mostly on pro-Russian sites) and haven't found any obvious candidates.

Sites I've checked include: kremlin.ru, washington.mid.ru, rusemb.org.uk, tass.com, ria.ru, rt.com, russia-insider.com, sputniknews.com, wsws.org, journal-neo.org, schillerinstitute.com, consortiumnews.com, thegrayzone.com, strategic-culture.org, globalresearch.ca, thesaker.is. My main search term was "russia nuclear" (without quotation marks).

Answer 1

The only recent one that comes to mind is Liz Truss's latest answer to the question if she would be ready to use nuclear if needed from August 24. But if that's what he's referring to, it's a twisting of her words — she's not commenting on a strategy regarding Russia, but rather on the potential use of nukes in general.

Also, notice Putin's wording here: he's commenting on "the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction" in general. That doesn't mean that NATO would be the first to strike, but rather that they're open to using them if worst comes to worst — e.g. if Russia uses them first. While Putin's trying to imply NATO could nuke Russia first, he might just be referring to statements about NATO using nukes in response to Russia using nukes and keeping his wording intentionally vague.

Answer 2

There are no official declarations but it looks like in case of Russia using nuclear weapon on Ukraine, USA plans to enter the war and destroy the Russian army in this country. Also, to sink the Black Sea fleet. USA still does not think to attack the territory of Russia itself, with any weapons. Mind that "Russia itself" is likely that USA officially recognizes, so without Crimea, etc.

This information comes from the former CIA director and retired four-star army general. It is not the official declaration but may be more reliable than explanations of Russian politicians that vary from "nuclear strike" till D. Medvedev assumes that says "will not be doing anything".

Meduza recently published a big overview, citing several other Western analytics. Looks like they are more in consensus that non-nuclear weapons would be the more preferred response to even nuclear strike from the Russian side (over Ukraine). Nuclear weapons may not be so efficient against the modern army where soldiers are seldom concentrated in one location.

So probably not. UK or France could theoretically attack, but without USA joining, unlikely. There is a known fake that UK once promised nuclear weapons for Ukraine. It is totally groundless and based on manually edited unofficial YouTube video. The full length version of this video includes a clear statement that it is not so.

Answer 3

OP answering own question.

---

Background

According to the most recent (2022-03) statement I could find, the 2022 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has been submitted to Congress but not yet declassified. The DoD media release says,

the President [Biden] has articulated his vision for U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy: As long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

(my emphasis).

---

Candidate 1

In a 2022-09-25 interview (transcript here) with CBS's "Face the Nation", US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the following.

We have communicated directly, privately, at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia

If Putin took 'catastrophic consequences for Russia' as clearly implying the use of strategic nuclear weapons against the Russian heartland in the event that Russia used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which is 'only' a US partner or ally, perhaps this would give the provocative sense Putin seems to have in mind.

ETA: @Fizz rightly points out that Sullivan's interview occurred after Putin's speech, so Putin couldn't have been referring to the interview, but perhaps could have been referring to the private communications Sullivan mentions, if those occurred before Putin's speech, which we don't know.

On the other hand, if Putin had read such a meaning into US DoD statements on US nuclear posture, Sullivan's statement indicates that such a reading was justified.

---

Candidate 2

In a 2021-12-07 interview with Fox News, US Senator and Senate Committee on Armed Services member Roger Wicker said, contemplating the prospect of a Russian invasion of Ukraine,

We don't rule out first-use nuclear [by the US against Russia].

Answer 4

As recently as March 2022, the White House declared its terms in their National Defense Strategy (NDS). A short commentary can be found in a short piece from "Arms Control Today" (ACT):

Biden’s policy declares that the “fundamental role” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter a nuclear attack, but will still leave open the option that nuclear weapons could be used in “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” officials told ACT.

So the US stance on nuclear usage mirrors the Russian one, since Russia stated that they consider the Crimean peninsula to be a "vital interest" of theirs.