The Kremlin on Thursday condemned Estonia’s readiness to host nuclear-capable NATO fighter jets as a direct threat to Russia’s national security. The diplomatic outcry follows Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur’s announcement that his country is fully prepared to station US F-35A jets carrying tactical nuclear weapons on a rotational basis.
“This is a very serious threat,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said during a press briefing in Moscow. “Such a deployment would be regarded as an immediate danger to our national interests and security. There will be consequences.”
While Estonia has not confirmed any deployment of nuclear warheads, the controversial capability of the F-35A aircraft to deliver US B61 gravity bombs under NATO’s nuclear-sharing doctrine has transformed a symbolic rotation into what Russia considers an existential provocation.
Further confirmed that Pevkur told reporters Estonia was “technically and politically” ready to receive nuclear-capable aircraft if NATO deems it necessary.
According to The Straits Times, Kremlin officials have sharply criticized Estonia’s willingness to host NATO’s nuclear-capable F‑35A jets, warning that it reflects a dangerous shift toward normalizing the forward positioning of strategic weapons systems near Russia’s borders. Moscow views this move not as a defensive necessity but as a calculated attempt by NATO to entrench nuclear infrastructure in close proximity to Russian territory—undermining decades of arms control efforts and destabilizing regional security architecture.
The Baltic flashpoint, Estonia’s strategic gamble
Estonia’s willingness to serve as a host for nuclear-ready aircraft is part of a broader NATO strategy of forward deployment aimed at deterring Russia. However, Moscow sees this as a creeping transformation of NATO’s presence in the region from defensive to offensive.
Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur confirmed that F‑35A jets—which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons—have already operated in Estonia and will continue to do so on a rotational basis. He emphasized that Estonia is fully prepared to host these NATO aircraft, reinforcing its commitment to collective defense and sending a clear political message of deterrence, according to Newsweek.
From Moscow’s standpoint, NATO’s decision to rotate aircraft into Estonia is not simply a matter of defensive readiness—it represents a deliberate violation of post–Cold War security understandings and a calculated provocation. Russian officials argue that such deployments erode the fragile strategic balance that has prevented direct confrontation in Europe since the Cold War. The Kremlin maintains that the alliance’s aggressive posturing in the Baltics, under the guise of deterrence, is accelerating a slide toward escalation.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted that diplomatic ties with Estonia have already deteriorated to near-total collapse, leaving virtually no remaining channels for dialogue. He implied that further deterioration was almost guaranteed if NATO continues to treat Russia’s borders as staging grounds for military experimentation. The presence of Western nuclear platforms in what was once considered a buffer zone is, in Moscow’s view, not just reckless—it’s strategically destabilizing and politically arrogant.
Iranian outlet Mehr News highlighted the growing frustration in Moscow, quoting analysts who described Estonia’s readiness to host NATO’s F‑35A jets as a “reckless proxy escalation on behalf of NATO”—a deliberate move aimed at testing Russia’s strategic red lines in the nuclear domain. According to these analysts, Estonia is serving as a geopolitical pawn in Washington’s broader campaign to encircle and contain Russia through forward-based nuclear infrastructure. The deployment of dual-capable aircraft, they argue, blurs the boundary between conventional deterrence and nuclear provocation, creating a volatile situation in which any misstep could spiral into open conflict.
Mehr’s coverage reflects a broader Iranian alignment with Russia, particularly in opposition to NATO’s expansionist military doctrines. Iranian military commentators and political officials have long warned that NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy violates the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and undermines regional and global security. Tehran has repeatedly criticized what it calls the “selective legality” of Western military alliances, noting that while NATO condemns any Russian or Iranian defense collaboration, it actively pushes aircraft to the borders of sovereign states under the guise of collective defense.
This criticism is echoed in other outlets aligned with Iran’s geopolitical bloc, which emphasize that NATO’s current posture in the Baltics is not defensive but intended to provoke a Russian response that could be used to justify further Western militarization. The deployment in Estonia is viewed by these analysts not only as reckless, but as a dangerous precedent that threatens to normalize tactical nuclear weapons near Russia’s borders—an act that could destabilize Europe and further polarize international alliances.
What is nuclear-sharing, and why is it dangerous?
Under NATO’s nuclear-sharing policy, non-nuclear member states such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and potentially Estonia, can host aircraft that are trained to deploy US tactical nuclear weapons if necessary. The warheads remain under US control but can be delivered by these nations’ air forces during wartime.
Russia has long opposed this policy, arguing it violates the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Now, with F-35A stealth aircraft stationed intermittently in the Baltics, Moscow views the line between symbolic deterrence and operational threat as increasingly blurred.
According to NATO’s own official doctrine, the deployment of aircraft is part of “credible deterrence” strategies, yet the alliance maintains that no nuclear weapons are permanently stationed outside US territory.
Russian response may include strategic redeployment
Analysts in Moscow suggest that if NATO proceeds with nuclear-capable air patrols in the Baltics, Russia may respond by moving Iskander-M missile systems, which can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, closer to the borders. Deployment of additional S-400 air defense systems and MiG-31 interceptors capable of launching hypersonic Kinzhal missiles is also under consideration.
Russian defense analysts have consistently emphasized that the deployment of aircraft near its borders will be treated as a significant provocation. According to past statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense, such moves could prompt reciprocal military steps, including repositioning tactical missile systems or conducting live-fire drills in the Western Military District.
Risk of nuclear miscalculation grows
Security experts warn that the proximity of nuclear-capable forces increases the risk of miscalculation during military exercises or aerial interceptions.
The Mirror UK cited senior defense analysts suggesting that Russia’s next move could include snap drills with nuclear forces or cyberattacks against Estonian military infrastructure.
According to Politico, Germany’s Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has warned that NATO must achieve full operational readiness by 2029, based on intelligence indicating that Russia could restore its military strength—and possibly challenge NATO—within a five-to-eight year timeframe. This caution has strengthened the case among Baltic states for a more assertive alliance posture. Now, with nuclear-capable jets poised for deployment, Pistorius’s warning takes on greater immediacy.
Double standards and Western hypocrisy
Russian officials have sharply criticized what they describe as a double standard in NATO’s regional posture. While the alliance routinely condemns Russian military deployments within its own territory, Moscow notes that NATO continues to rotate aircraft into Baltic airspace—within close range of Saint Petersburg. Russian analysts argue that this posture undermines the credibility of Western narratives centered on deterrence and defense.
From the Kremlin’s perspective, the deployment of aircraft in Estonia reflects a broader pattern of NATO escalation under the guise of security cooperation. Russian government sources emphasize that such moves bring alliance assets uncomfortably close to Russian borders, raising the risk of military miscalculation and strategic instability.
This criticism has found support among several non-Western states. Both Iran and China have previously expressed opposition to NATO’s nuclear-sharing framework, warning that it increases the likelihood of confrontation and undermines global non-proliferation norms.
As the Baltic states align more closely with Washington’s military doctrine, Russia sees an emerging encirclement strategy designed to corner it into reactive escalation. The question now is not whether tensions will continue, but whether either side is prepared to walk back from the brink.
With nuclear-capable jets now entering what Moscow calls a “red zone,” and with NATO silent on de-escalation, the region appears poised for an era of intensified standoff—one in which any mistake, however small, could have catastrophic consequences.
