US officials are toeing a cautious line in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s latest suggestion that he may be willing to resort to nuclear weapons.
Following Putin’s thinly veiled reference to the nuclear option in his remarks last week, Biden administration officials said they were taking the comments seriously, while trying to avoid escalating the situation. with more belligerent rhetoric.
The Kremlin’s announcement, which also details aggressive new moves to try to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine in Moscow’s favor, caught US officials between a grim set of options with Putin’s nuclear saber slashes.
“We communicated to the Russians what the consequences would be, but we were careful how we talk about it publicly because, from our point of view, we want to establish the principle that there will be catastrophic consequences, but we don’t let’s not engage in a game of tit for tat rhetoric,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told ABC on Sunday.
Putin said last week that Moscow was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend any of its territories, accusing the United States and its allies of “nuclear blackmail” and preparing to “destroy” his country.
“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and some components are more modern than those of NATO countries,” Putin said in a nationally televised address.
The White House said it saw no reason to adjust its nuclear stance in response to Putin’s comments. Instead, US officials have tried to balance strong calls for Russia not to escalate the conflict with a desire to keep conversations with Moscow private.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken told ’60 Minutes’ in an interview broadcast on Sunday that Putin was using “irresponsible rhetoric”. He also reaffirmed that the White House had publicly and privately warned Moscow against the use of nuclear weapons.
Blinken won’t go into detail about the message or US strategy, but he said the administration has a plan if Russia were to deploy nuclear weapons.
“President Biden has been determined that as we do everything we can to help Ukrainians defend themselves, as we do everything we can to rally other countries to put pressure on Russia, we are equally determined that this war does not expand, not expand,” Blinken said when asked if this was a plan to “prevent World War III.”
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday declined to get into the potential response if Russia uses nuclear weapons, as President Biden and the Secretary of State have done in recent weeks, asked about the consequences.
Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Monday that Moscow was in contact with Washington on nuclear issues, but said it was a “very sporadic” dialogue.
“There are channels of interaction between the Russian Federation and the United States, they are very sporadic, but they allow you to bring urgent messages about each other’s position,” Peskov told Russian media, referencing Sullivan’s statement.
Much speculation has also been given about the exact type of weapon Putin wields. There are fears that the Russian leader may resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, also known as non-strategic nuclear weapons, which are supposed to win a battle. Long-range or strategic nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are designed to end a war, much like when the Allies dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
A major problem, however, is that nuclear technology has advanced considerably, with Russia and the United States both having tactical weapons in their arsenals that are said to do far more damage than the bombs used nearly 80 years ago.
Then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in 2018 that he did not believe “there is a ‘tactical nuke’. Any nuke used at any time is a strategic game-changer.”
Moreover, the frosty relationship between the two nations only underscores the risks involved as administration officials seek to bluntly warn Russia of the consequences without worsening an already difficult situation.
“I think Putin has been very smart in keeping the West on the lookout for his nuclear threats. The West reacts very enthusiastically to those threats, and I think they see more in it than they realize. should. But I think it worked to his advantage,” said Mark Cancian, senior adviser to the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Cancian said US officials have so far followed the right path in using strategic ambiguity to respond, warning Russia without creating wider panic by committing to a military response to any use of nuclear weapons.
Former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst, meanwhile, acknowledged that Washington’s messages to Moscow over the past week had been strong, with no sign that Putin’s warnings had deterred the West from continuing to supply. arms to Ukraine.
“It seems we said to the Russians ‘don’t do it. If you do, our response will be devastating. You’re not going to like this. It’s good,” Herbst told The Hill on Monday.
“Putin, the lifelong KGB officer, knows how to play mind games. … So he cleverly constructed that image to scare us and not advocate for us,” Herbst said, adding, “we can’t afford to fall into the trap.
Herbst suggested the United States could try to get involved in other countries as part of a lobbying effort to privately try to steer Putin away from nuclear force, including China and India.
“The Chinese are clearly not our friends, but they have expressed their displeasure with Putin’s failed war in Ukraine,” he said. “I imagine the Chinese would not be happy if Putin used weapons of mass destruction. So we should have a conversation with the Chinese and for that matter the Indians to have them – obviously only in private – urge the Russians not to not do it.
The latest round of talk about Russia’s use of nuclear weapons comes about seven months after Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine. The Russian president hinted soon after the war began that nuclear weapons might come into play. The US government said in March that it was not adjusting its nuclear stance in response to those comments.
But Putin’s mention of nuclear weapons last week comes as he dug his heels in response to a Ukrainian counteroffensive that pushed back Russian forces and regained control of key towns.
Putin said nuclear weapons could be in play to respond to any invasion or attack on the Russian homeland, leaving some to wonder if he was referring to autonomous areas of Ukraine that Moscow claimed via manipulated referendums.
In the same recorded speech where he made reference to nuclear war, Putin called for the conscription of hundreds of thousands of men of military age. The move led to viral images of Russian men leaving their families, pushback from lawmakers and protests from civilians.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in an interview with ‘Face The Nation’, pointed to Russia’s occupation of nuclear facilities in Ukraine and Putin’s past rhetoric as reason to take him seriously when he dangles the threat of a nuclear war.
“I don’t think he’s bluffing,” Zelensky said. “I think the world is deterring it and containing that threat. We have to keep putting pressure on him and not allow him to continue.
