Currently a senior research scholar and adjunct professor for the Saltzman Institute for War and Peace Studies at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, Clement previously worked for the Central Intelligence Agency from 1995 to 2018. While at the CIA, the professor witnessed Putin’s rise to power in 2000 when he was appointed Prime Minister by former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. 

On Thursday, Clement spoke to Michigan State University students and staff at the Facility for Rare Isotopes and Beams to discuss Putin and his threats of nuclear war from 2018 to present day. Before beginning his talk, Clement clarified that his views are not representative of the U.S. government or the CIA and are entirely his own. 

Clement described Putin as "careful" and "prudent" when it came to Russian military operations prior to the events of Feb. 24, 2022, so he found himself at a loss in the days following. The war with Ukraine is the "biggest land war since World War II on the European mainland with a large force that suffered huge, huge casualties," Clement said. 

"This isn't the old Putin that I thought I understood."

When it comes to threats as a whole, it’s common for leaders of countries to "convey messages" publicly or through actions as a means to warn adversaries, Clement said. Veiled nuclear threats are no exception. 

"I view a lot of these things in these comments about nuclear weapons and possible use as essentially very explicit communication," Clement said. "They're actually more than just a signal."

Clement then went on to recount numerous instances where Putin made "veiled threats" of nuclear war, including the day Russia officially invaded Ukraine.

Clement showed one of those instances in his slideshow, citing a quote given by Putin in a press release following the invasion of Ukraine. It read, "No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history."

These veiled threats are closely related to the concept of redlines, which Clement explained as Putin implicitly saying, "If you press a certain place or do a certain thing, we will retaliate. We will respond in a very direct way."

Examples of redlines given by the professor were if Ukraine were to successfully gain Crimea or attack the Black Sea Fleet, a subsidiary of the Russian Navy. When Ukraine was able to invade the Russian territory of Kursk in August of 2024, there were concerns that a redline had been crossed, Clement said.

The question for intelligence analysts and policymakers is where those redlines are drawn, and if crossed, whether or not Putin, and therefore Russia, will respond with the use of tactical nuclear weapons instead of strategic. 

Tactical nuclear weapons have smaller explosive yields, whereas strategic nuclear weapons — like those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II — cause more damage and include intercontinental and intermediate range ballistic missiles. 

Referencing talks he had with fellow Columbia University professors and members of the CIA, Clement said that Putin is unlikely to administer the use of a strategic nuclear weapon in populated areas like cities, where the reaction would be "significant." During the Cold War, much of the deterrent for nuclear weapons usage was the concept of mutually assured destruction, which Clement said remains true. 

However, Clement said, the Russian president may employ the use of an artillery shell in an area such as the Black Sea.

"If you're sending it someplace where it's not going to fall on much except the water, but you did decide to show your willingness to detonate, is that a very powerful signal, or not?" Clement said. "Is that one way that you might make the point you need to stop doing whatever you're doing, or the next time it won't just be over the water, it will be someplace else?"

Yet, with a new presidential administration in office, the professor shared that the issue of nuclear weapons usage is no longer as prominent as it once was. 

"I think the nuclear weapons issues right now is kind of off the table," Clement said. "He doesn't need to even make those threats, because he's got a president who seems to be comfortable having a conversation about how to resolve the Ukraine problem without Ukraine at the table."