The world is once again teetering on the edge of nuclear brinkmanship as tensions escalate between nuclear-armed powers, raising alarms in diplomatic circles and among disarmament advocates worldwide. On October 14, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a bold threat: if Russia does not pull back from its offensive in Ukraine, the United States will consider supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kyiv. This declaration, made during Trump’s flight to Israel, reverberated across capitals and prompted immediate, sharp responses from Moscow.
Trump’s words were as direct as they were consequential: “If this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks.” According to BBC reporting, the Tomahawk missile is no ordinary weapon—capable of striking targets up to 1,500 miles away at speeds of 550 miles per hour. Some sources, such as Reuters, even cite a maximum range of 2,500 kilometers, meaning much of western Russia, including Moscow, could be within striking distance. The mere mention of these missiles set off a wave of anxiety, not just in Russia but among global leaders who fear the introduction of nuclear-capable systems into the conflict could tip the balance toward catastrophe.
Russia’s response was swift and unambiguous. Dmitri Medvedev, former Russian president and current deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, took to Telegram to issue a stern warning. According to The Guardian, Medvedev dismissed Trump’s threat as familiar bluster but did not downplay its seriousness. “Trump said that if the Russian President doesn’t resolve the Ukrainian conflict, ‘it will end badly for him’. He’s making this threat for the hundred and first time, in short. If the ‘business peacemaker’ is referring to Tomahawks, the phrase is incorrect.” Medvedev’s caution was chilling: supplying Ukraine with cruise missiles “could end badly for everyone. And most of all, for Trump himself.” He underscored that such deliveries would be seen as a “serious escalation” and reminded the world that Tomahawks are nuclear-capable. “This is truly a serious escalation,” he wrote, highlighting Moscow’s stance that any Tomahawk launch would be treated as if it carried a nuclear warhead.
This interpretation dramatically raises the stakes, making the risk of miscalculation—always present in nuclear standoffs—even more acute. The threat of World War III is no longer a distant specter but, as The Times notes, a tangible risk that cannot be ignored. Despite the heated rhetoric, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov clarified that there are no current plans for a direct phone call between President Vladimir Putin and President Trump. “There are many opportunities for promptly organizing such a conversation,” Peskov told reporters, “if it was needed.” For now, however, diplomatic channels remain dormant, a worrying sign given the intensity of current hostilities.
Ukraine, for its part, sees an opportunity in the U.S. president’s tough talk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in his nightly address, welcomed Trump’s stance, emphasizing that U.S. support could serve as effective pressure against Russia. “We see and hear that Russia fears the possibility of the United States providing us with Tomahawks. It is a signal that this kind of pressure can be effective in achieving peace.” Zelenskyy’s remarks, reported by CNN, reflect the delicate balance between deterrence and escalation—a balance that grows ever more precarious as the rhetoric intensifies.
The global context only adds to the tension. As Sandy Africa, research director at the Mapungubwe Institute of Strategic Reflection, wrote in Business Day, the world is facing its greatest need for nuclear disarmament in decades. Ongoing conflicts, the expansion of nuclear arsenals, and the expiration of key treaties all contribute to a sense of looming crisis. Senior Russian officials have repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Ukraine conflict, and Trump’s recent order to move U.S. nuclear submarines in response has done little to calm nerves. The United Kingdom and France are reportedly considering expanding their own nuclear capabilities, while public sentiment about joining the arms race is shifting in countries that had previously resisted such moves.
Adding to the uncertainty is the impending expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between Russia and the United States, set for February 2026. Russia has agreed to extend the treaty by one year, but only if the U.S. reciprocates. Meanwhile, both nations have withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a landmark agreement signed in 1987. Concerns also persist that some nuclear-weapon states are conducting low-yield tests, despite the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 not yet being in force. North Korea, which has never signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), continues to test weapons as a form of leverage, adding another layer of instability to the global order.
The June 2025 U.S. bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities further complicated matters, shaking Iran’s faith in the NPT and prompting a round of emergency diplomacy with France, the UK, and Germany. Although these talks offered a brief respite, the imposition of snapback sanctions has plunged the situation back into uncertainty. According to Science Advances, radioactive dust from Cold War-era nuclear testing was still being detected in European air samples as recently as 2022, a stark reminder of the long-term consequences of nuclear weapons and the urgent need for robust oversight.
In this climate, Africa’s role as a champion for nuclear disarmament has never been more crucial. The 1996 African Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) and the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) both underscore the continent’s commitment to a world free of nuclear arms. South Africa, in particular, stands as a rare example of successful disarmament, having dismantled its own nuclear program before joining the NPT in the early 1990s. As Dr. Africa notes, “African agency remains important.” The continent’s collective strength and experience offer a powerful lever to press for global disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Looking ahead, two major events are set to shape the nuclear landscape in 2026: the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in April and South Africa’s presidency over the first review conference of the TPNW toward the year’s end. The recent appointment of a global scientific panel on the effects of nuclear war, including an African expert, signals growing recognition of the continent’s voice in these debates.
Yet, as the architecture of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament comes under increasing strain, the risk of miscalculation grows. Trump’s threats and Medvedev’s counter-warnings are not just political theater; they are reminders that personal rivalries and national ambitions can amplify global dangers. Without renewed diplomatic engagement and a recommitment to arms control, the world edges closer to a scenario with consequences no one can afford to ignore.
In a world where every threat and every silence carries weight, the path forward demands not just vigilance but genuine dialogue and a renewed commitment to peace.