The fact that NATO is practicing the use of nuclear weapons would be a side note in normal times. In view of Putin's nuclear threats, the "Steadfast Noon" maneuver has a completely different effect. Even if NATO is emphatically defensive.
Just a few weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin played the nuclear card again. After annexing several Ukrainian territories, he said Russia has all the means to repel an attack on its territory. "This is not a bluff," said the President. He didn't mention nuclear weapons at all - but the message was still taken as a threat with exactly that.
This Monday starts something that could seem like an answer to that. NATO starts its big maneuver "Steadfast Noon" and trains a nuclear strike against Russia. Is something escalating here?
The short answer: no. At least not for now. NATO emphasizes that this is an annual maneuver and that, above all, no real weapons will be used. In addition, the maneuver takes place around 1000 kilometers from the Russian border, via Belgium, the North Sea and Great Britain.
"This is definitely not a sign to Russia or a response to Putin's nuclear threats," Barbara Kunz told ntv.de. The political scientist conducts research at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg. "These maneuvers have been around for years. They are practiced rituals from the Cold War."
The former lieutenant general of the Bundeswehr, Heinrich Brauß, also speaks to ntv.de of a "procedural exercise". But he sees in the maneuver at least a signal of determination not to be intimidated by the Russian saber-rattling. Especially since, as today's expert from the German Society for Foreign Relations (DGAP) emphasizes, canceling the maneuver would have been understood as "giving in to a Russian nuclear threat, even in Russia."
NATO seems to be trying not to let "Steadfast Noon" look like a provocation. Unlike before, the alliance even issued a press release this year. It states that the "fundamental intention of NATO's nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent violence and deter aggression" - a quote from NATO's new strategic concept, which emerged at a summit in Madrid in June this year . In it, Russia once again became the center of attention.
So NATO is emphasizing that it's all about defense - and not about threatening Russia, as Putin has been claiming for years. But the press release also speaks of determination: "As long as there are nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance," it says. A spokesman for the German Ministry of Defense said this Monday: "We also think it's very important that we make it clear within the NATO framework what our defense capabilities are."
The question is whether this maneuver of all things worries the Kremlin. Because "Steadfast Noon" is about nuclear sharing. In short, it means that European planes, including German ones, can fly to Russia with American nuclear bombs and drop them there. Ultimate command would rest with the Americans.
Kunz sees this tactic as a "relic of the Cold War." "If there were ever a nuclear war, nuclear sharing would not play a role," she says. "To put it simply: the days of taking off in a plane to drop a bomb over Moscow are over. Such a plane would be shot down as soon as it reached the border."
It is true that nuclear war today would be fought with ICBMs. They are fired from launch pads in the US or from nuclear submarines. You can launch nuclear missiles from anywhere. According to Kunz, the current exercise is primarily about creating trust within NATO. "Nuclear sharing serves to reassure the European allies that the US is on their side." That is "symbolic politics inwards".
But there are also other views. Former Lieutenant General Brauss agrees that the Steadfast Noon exercise is also about demonstrating the unity of NATO partners in North America and Europe. This is precisely why, as he emphasizes to ntv.de, nuclear participation is anything but obsolete for him.
Should Russia attack NATO in Europe and at the same time threaten it with nuclear weapons, it offers the option of confronting Moscow with a nuclear counter-threat from Europe. The fact that Americans and Europeans would carry out such a dangerous mission together would be of particular importance for the unity of the alliance and the credibility of deterrence.
"Since American bombs would be transported by European warplanes and hit Russia, Russia would have to respond with a strike against the United States," he says. "Since that in turn could result in a strategic nuclear war between Russia and America and thus mutual annihilation, Russia would shy away from it." Such is the scenario in which one never knows exactly whether it will actually happen as Brauss admits. But the associated risk for Russia itself, according to Brauss, would be unacceptably high for Moscow. "Conclusion: Nuclear sharing remains an essential element of NATO's deterrence strategy to prevent war and extortion."
But it is also not certain that Russia does not see the exercise as a threat - or at least says so. "The Russians have been saying for years that they feel threatened by NATO and the United States," says Kunz. One could say that this was unfounded and that the exercise was not meant as a threat. "But Russia can book them as another building block for the supposed threat."
But Russia is also likely to hold a nuclear weapons maneuver itself under the title "Grom" ("Thunder"). That doesn't worry Kunz either, because that has also been around for decades. However, she does not give the all-clear. "The overall situation is precarious. We don't know how the war of aggression against Ukraine will continue, nor how it will end. What worries me more is that things are not going well for Russia. A Putin who feels backed into a corner is out more dangerous in my opinion." You don't know what he's going to do. Brauss is banking on continuing to respect the logic of nuclear deterrence. Even Putin should respect their dangers.
