CNN politics published on Friday an article that explains how US President Joe Biden’s recent warnings that Russian President Vladimir Putin was to use tactical nuclear weapons to win the war in Ukraine, were not based on any new insights on Putin’s ambitions or changes in Russia’s nuclear posture.

Biden had warned earlier today during a Democratic fundraiser in New York that the world risks nuclear "Armageddon" for the first time since the Cold War, claiming that he is trying to find Russian President Vladimir Putin's "off-ramp" in the Ukraine war.

However, contradicting Biden's claims, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last week said that there is no evidence in sight that suggests that Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

The article explains that Biden's comments were a reflection of heightened concerns about Russia carrying out a nuclear strike in Ukraine.

The lack of intelligence to support such claims troubled several US officials, with one senior administration official saying that Biden was speaking “frankly” in his remarks, reflecting heightened concerns - despite that in reality, Putin never claimed that Moscow intends to initiate a nuclear offense. But the article states otherwise.

The article goes on to say that the US's past failures in war account for heightened concerns in Biden's administration, yet the morning after Biden’s comments were delivered, administration officials said the US’s nuclear stance has not changed.

"Our posture hasn’t changed," one official said of the US preparations. "If there was some new piece of alarming information, it obviously would."

Read more: Lavrov: Ukraine creates risks of use of mass destruction weapons

When Putin delivered an address to the Russian population on September 21, he said his country was exposed to nuclear threats by the West, and that Russia was in possession of weapons of mass destruction - only to counter western threats.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov himself said earlier today that Kiev was creating risks associated with the use of weapons of mass destruction, which is also evidenced by Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky's statements about NATO's "preemptive" strikes on Russia.

Yesterday, Zelenski said that NATO and the entire international community should reconsider how to respond to Russia's possible use of nuclear weapons and provide for preemptive strikes.

Following these statements, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said yesterday that the US and UK who "direct, manage activities and talk about intentions to defend [Kiev] to the very end. Therefore, it is they who are responsible and should be held accountable for the actions and statements of this person and this regime."

Furthermore, the partial mobilization announced on September 21 wasn't made in response to alleged Russian losses within military ranks, as the CNN article suggests. 

The mobilization came at a time of withdrawals for Russian forces, as Russian and allied armed forces have withdrawn from the town of Lyman, also known as Krasnyi Lyman, in the northern part of the DPR.

They had to withdraw in order to avoid the risk of being encircled.

Yet, the West and its allies interpret this as the outcome of Russian "losses" despite the ironical fact that Moscow recently annexed four Ukrainian regions into Russian territory.

On October 2nd, sources quoted on condition of anonymity by Bloomberg said that the US is planning on making monthly transfers in aid to Ukraine in efforts to continue the war against Russia and it called on its EU counterparts to assist in the like. 

The US has been pushing for further assistance to Ukraine as the EU struggles to deliver its previous commitments.

Although the US and the EU have been quite supportive financially, they have not met Ukraine's needs in terms of military equipment, as per Ukrainian claims.

It was reported on September 30 that the White House might sign an order that would provide Ukraine with the most up-to-date Abrams and Leopard tanks - some of the highly sought weapons Ukraine has been demanding from its allies.

Military Watch Magazine published on September 30 an article that detailed five reasons why it is improbable that the US and Germany would deliver Leopard II or Abrams Tanks to Ukraine - one of the reasons being that NATO would not want to compromise the intelligence invested in the production of its most valuable tanks through capture. 

At some point, Spain offered to provide Ukraine with the tanks but was later pressured by Germany to reduce the number of Leopard tanks which were not even the most up-to-date tanks. 

Read more: Kremlin slams Zelensky call for preemptive nuclear strike on Russia