US President Donald Trump's announcement that he has ordered the deployment of two nuclear submarines to"appropriate regions" in response to threats from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sounds like a serious escalation. But behind the headlines and the sharp tone on social media, the move appears more symbolic than strategic, a gesture that carries a political message but does not change the real military situation.

The United States maintains a permanent naval nuclear readiness through ballistic submarines, part of the so-called"nuclear triad" (along with strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles). These submarines (SSBNs) patrol constantly, ready to strike any key target, including Russia. Their mission is built on the concept of deterrence by stealth - they must remain invisible and undetectable, not be detected.

Against this background, it becomes clear that Trump's statement is more theatrical. From the point of view of military strategy, there is no real need to move such submarines, they are in specific positions anyway. Usually, between 8 and 10 of the 14 Ohio-class submarines are on active missions in various parts of the world. They are on constant combat readiness, but not because of any statements by Russian officials, but because this is their role.

Could Trump have been referring to another type of submarine—such as a multipurpose submarine (SSN) or a cruise missile submarine (SSGN)? It is possible. But they too are already deployed in key regions, performing routine missions, including surveillance and strike readiness. Redirecting them would not be news, much less a reason for a public statement. Announcing such a move would actually undermine their effectiveness.

So the question is: Why is Trump speaking out like this? The answer is not military, but political.

Medvedev's comments, in which he alludes to Russia's automated nuclear response system, known as"Dead Hand," are a provocation. But they are not aimed so much at Washington as at the domestic Russian public and the international stage. This nuclear system is often mythologized, but the reality is far more boring.

American intelligence knows where Russian missile silos are located thanks to decades of surveillance, espionage, and open data. They are static, easily vulnerable, and in the event of a surprise attack, they would be the first to be hit. Thus, the automated system that is supposed to respond to a surprise nuclear strike would be paralyzed by the very thing it is supposed to neutralize.

Real deterrence depends on mobile installations, submarines, aircraft, and the human factor to approve the actions. Aircraft can be easily disabled by strikes on airfields. Mobile installations and submarines theoretically have a chance of survival, but they cannot act without command from the higher leadership. The idea that some automatic mechanism will work on its own is an outdated myth, not a reliable strategy.

That is why Trump's response, no matter how loud it is, does not change anything in essence. Probably even in the Kremlin they do not perceive it as a real threat. It is part of the political game, a demonstration before the American public and an attempt to show firmness and determination. For Moscow, this is yet another proof that the West is acting emotionally, not strategically.

More worryingly, such public statements from both sides risk normalizing nuclear threats as a tool of political rhetoric. However, it should be the opposite: deterrence works through silence, not noise.

Of course, Medvedev's threats should not be ignored. He is still part of the power structure in Russia and his words matter. But the response should not be through loud statements on social media, but through clear and consistent policy behind closed doors.

Ultimately, Trump's statement is not a harbinger of war. It is just another political statement dressed up in military terminology. It does not change the balance of power, it does not deter the Kremlin, and it certainly does not bring the war in Ukraine any closer to an end. The submarines are where they should be. The real risk is that they are becoming more and more part of political theater - and in dangerous times.