The United States has for several months been sending private communications to Moscow warning Russian leaders of the serious consequences that would follow the use of a nuclear weapon, according to U.S. officials, who said the communications underscore what President Biden and his associates said have publicly articulated.
The Biden administration has generally chosen to deliberately keep warnings of the consequences of a nuclear strike vague, so the Kremlin is concerned about how Washington might respond, officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive considerations.
The White House’s attempt to cultivate what is known in the nuclear deterrent world as “strategic ambiguity” comes as Russia continues to escalate its rhetoric about a possible use of nuclear weapons amid a domestic political mobilization aimed at stem military losses in eastern Ukraine.
The State Department was involved in the private communications with Moscow, but officials declined to say who transmitted the messages or the scope. It was not clear if the United States had sent any fresh private messages in the hours since Russian President Vladimir Putin issued his latest veiled nuclear threat during a speech announcing partial mobilization early Wednesday, but a high-level one US officials said the communication has been consistent over the past few months.
Putin faces anger in Russia over military mobilization and prisoner swaps
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, wrote in a Telegram post on Thursday that areas in eastern Ukraine would be “accepted” by Russia after the staged “referendums” were completed, and vowed to strengthen the security of those areas.
To defend this annexed country, Medvedev said Russia could use not only its newly mobilized armed forces, but also “any Russian weapon, including strategic nuclear weapons and those using new principles,” a reference to hypersonic weapons.
“Russia has chosen its path,” added Medvedev. “There is no going back.”
The comment came a day after Putin suggested Russia would annex occupied territories in southern and eastern Ukraine and formally incorporate the regions into what Moscow considers its territory. He said he wasn’t bluffing when he vowed to use all means at Russia’s disposal to defend the country’s territorial integrity — a veiled reference to the country’s nuclear arsenal.
Biden administration officials have stressed that this isn’t the first time the Russian leadership has threatened to use nuclear weapons since the war began on Feb. 24, and said there was no indication Russia was using its nuclear weapons in Preparing for an upcoming strike.
Still, the latest statements from the Russian leadership are more specific than previous comments and come at a time when Russia is reeling on the battlefield from a US-backed Ukrainian counter-offensive.
While previous Kremlin statements seemed aimed at warning the United States and its allies against helping Ukraine too far, Putin’s latest comments suggest that Russia is considering using a nuclear weapon on the battlefield in Ukraine to freeze profits and to force Kyiv and its supporters into submission, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based nonproliferation advocacy group.
“What everyone needs to realize is that this is one of, if not the, worst episodes where nuclear weapons could be used in decades,” Kimball said. “The consequences of even a so-called ‘limited nuclear war’ would be absolutely catastrophic.”
US and Russian diplomats are at odds at the United Nations over the war in Ukraine
For years, US nuclear experts have feared that Russia could use smaller tactical nuclear weapons, sometimes referred to as “battlefield nukes,” to positively end a conventional war on its terms – a strategy sometimes referred to as “escalation to de-escalation.”
On Thursday, Vadym Skibitskyi, deputy head of Ukraine’s military intelligence, told Britain’s ITV News that it was possible that Russia would use nuclear weapons against Ukraine “to stop our offensive activities and destroy our state”.
“This is a threat to other countries,” Skibitskyi said. “The detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon will not only affect Ukraine, but also the Black Sea region.”
Ukrainians have tried to signal that even a Russian nuclear strike would not force them to surrender – and could even do the opposite.
“Threats of nuclear weapons… to Ukrainians?” Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, tweeted on Wednesday. “Putin has not yet understood who he is dealing with.”
In an interview with CBS News’ 60 Minutes that aired Sunday, Biden was asked what he would say to Putin if the Russian leader was considering using nuclear weapons in the conflict against Ukraine.
“Not. Not. Not,” Biden said. “You’re going to change the face of war like it hasn’t changed since World War II.”
Biden declined to say in detail how the United States would respond, saying only that the response would be “consistent” and would depend “on the scale of its actions.”
The Biden administration would be in crisis if Russia used a small nuclear weapon in Ukraine, which is not a US treaty ally. Any direct US military response against Russia would risk the possibility of a major war between nuclear-armed superpowers – avoiding which the Biden administration has made its top priority in its overall Ukraine policy.
Matthew Kroenig, a government professor at Georgetown University and director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council, has argued that in the face of a limited Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine, the best option for the government may be to step in and support Ukraine limited conventional strike against the Russian forces or bases that launched the attack.
“If it is Russian forces in Ukraine that launched the nuclear attack, the United States could act directly against those forces,” Kroenig said. “It would be calibrated to send a message that this is not a major war, this is a limited strike. If you are Putin, what do you do in response? I don’t think you’re going to say right away, let’s unleash all nuclear weapons on the United States.”
But even a limited conventional strike by the US military against Russia would be seen as reckless by many in Washington, who would argue against risking all-out war with a nuclear-armed Russia.
James M. Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said it doesn’t make sense at this point to play off US responses because there is such a wide range of possible Russian action — from an underground nuclear test that injures no one, to a full-scale explosion that kills tens of thousands of civilians – and there is no sign that Putin is about to cross the threshold.
“If he’s really, really serious about the imminent use of nuclear weapons, he would almost certainly want us to know,” Acton said. “He would much rather threaten to go nuclear and have us make concessions than actually have to go down the nuclear route.”
Over 1,300 arrests were reported as Russians protested the military mobilization
US officials this week stepped up efforts at the UN General Assembly to prevent Russia from seriously considering what would be the first use of a nuclear weapon in a conflict since the United States atomic bombed Japan in 1945.
Foreign Minister Antony Blinken told a UN Security Council meeting on Thursday that Russia’s “reckless nuclear threats must stop immediately.”
“This week President Putin said that Russia would not hesitate, and I quote, to use ‘all available weapon systems’ in response to a threat to its territorial integrity – a threat made all the more ominous given Russian intentions to annex large chunks Ukraine in the coming days,” said Blinken. “When that is complete, we can assume that President Putin will describe any Ukrainian effort to liberate this country as an attack on so-called Russian territory.”
Blinken noted that in January Russia joined other permanent members of the Security Council in signing a joint statement declaring “A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.”
Hudson reported from the United Nations in New York.
War in Ukraine: What you need to know
The newest: Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “partial mobilization” of troops in a Sept. 21 address to the nation, describing the move as an attempt to defend Russian sovereignty against a West trying to use Ukraine as a tool to “divide and destroy Russia”. .” Follow our live updates here.
The fight: A successful Ukrainian counter-offensive has forced a major Russian retreat in the northeastern Kharkiv region in recent days, as troops fled towns and villages they had occupied since the early days of the war, leaving behind large quantities of military equipment.
Annexation Referendums: According to Russian news agencies, staged referendums that would be illegal under international law are to be held in the breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine from September 23-27. Another staged referendum will be held by the Moscow-appointed government in Kherson starting Friday.
Photos: Washington Post photographers have been on the ground since the war began – here is some of their most impressive work.
How can you help: Here are ways people in the US can help support the people of Ukraine, as well as what people around the world have donated.
Read our full coverage of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Are you on Telegram? Subscribe to our channel for updates and exclusive videos.