Washington Wednesday: The prospect of Armageddon

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Wednesday the 12th of October, 2022. This is WORLD Radio and we’re glad you’ve joined us today! Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Washington Wednesday.

The White House has spent the better part of a week trying to explain a remark by President Biden.

During a Democratic fundraiser on Thursday, Biden talked about tensions with Russia and nuclear threats by its president Vladimir Putin.

He told supporters that we haven't seen this kind of—his words—“prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis."

EICHER: National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told ABC’s This Week that the president was reflecting the “very high stakes” of the moment, but...

KIRBY: His comments were not based on new or fresh intelligence or new indications that Mr. Putin has made a decision to use nuclear weapons, and quite frankly, we don’t have any indication that he has made that kind of decision.

The White House has warned of “catastrophic” consequences for Russia and that it has told the Kremlin privately exactly what that means.

Joining us now to discuss the Biden administration’s handling of the crisis and the latest developments in the war in Ukraine is Bradley Bowman.

He is a former congressional affairs officer on the Army staff in the Pentagon. And has served as a top national security adviser to members of the U.S. Senate.

REICHARD: Bradley, good morning!

BRADLEY BOWMAN, GUEST: Good morning! How are you?

REICHARD: Doing well, even if we’re all living in the shadow of nuclear armageddon. But first of all, Brad, what was your reaction to those remarks?

BOWMAN: Well, my first reaction was why would the President choose to say something so important at a fundraiser? It didn't exactly seem like the most appropriate place to make a statement about something that is so grave. And so that was my first impression. My second impression was that the general gist behind what he's saying I think has some truth to it. Let me hasten to add some nuance there, if I may. As I look at all the different angles here, I think more or less it's accurate to say we have not seen a moment of nuclear weapons danger like this as a country since, arguably, the Cuban Missile Crisis. So I think he was right in suggesting that. But the use of the word Armageddon and kind of ambiguity around it, I think, was not ideal. I think what he's perhaps knowing and maybe not saying as eloquently as he should have is that Russia has approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons. For comparison, the United States has about 200. And in Russian doctrine, there's an explicit concept of using tactical nuclear weapons to escalate to de-escalate. In other words, the preemptive use of them. And we've seen comments since February 24th suggesting that Russia might do just that. And so that would be the first time that tactical nuclear weapons have been used, and the first time that they've been used at all since World War II, and the comments and behavior of Vladimir Putin makes that something that we have to take seriously, I'd say.

REICHARD: What about the “catastrophic” response warning from the White House. What’s your take on what that might be?

BOWMAN: You know, I think that's the President, again, speaking a little bit off the cuff trying to increase deterrence, right? Deterrence is a term we often hear that many don't understand, is the idea that well, first of all, to understand that deterrence is not what I think about it, or you think about it, or what the reality is, it's in the mind of the adversary. And so, you know, how much danger are we in? Well, the truth is, no one knows for sure. It's really up to one individual. It's up to Vladimir Putin, which is a really scary thing to say and as Secretary of Defense Austin has said, there's really not a lot of people standing between Vladimir Putin and the use of Russian nuclear weapons. Let's say, the Kremlin is not known for its checks and balances, if you will. And so that's a little bit of a scary proposition. So whether he will use them or not depends on whether he thinks it serves his interests. And if he were to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. or against a NATO member, that would be essentially a suicide pact. And hopefully, we can assume that Putin wants to live. So I think that's unlikely. And that's maybe where the President's Armageddon comments are a little bit sloppy, because I think the chances for that are quite low, because as far as I can tell, Putin is not suicidal. But I think there is an increased risk of him to potentially use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine if things get really bad there for the Russians. And he believes that Russian deterrence is at a low and that he needs to remind the world that they have these weapons to prevent aggression—from his perspective—against Russia proper.

REICHARD: What event or series of events would actually bring us to the brink of nuclear war similar to the days of the Cuban missile crisis? What would it take?

BOWMAN: You know, it's a great question. And as I suggested a minute ago, much of this will be decided in the head of Vladimir Putin. But I want Ukraine to succeed on the battlefield. I think the stakes for America there are high, not only in Europe, but I think the world is watching. Beijing is watching. Pyongyang is watching. Tehran is watching. And we want them to take the right lessons from what they see there. But I think the most likely scenario would be where we have a massive conventional rout of Russian forces. And you started to have increased domestic pressure on Putin to take the gloves off, if you will. And I think that explains a little bit of what we've seen in Ukraine with these massive strikes that hit Kyiv, hit Lviev, hit Odessa, and hit Kharkiv, including a lot of civilian infrastructure. There was a lot of pressure from hawkish nationalists to say, hey, we're fighting one hand tied behind our back, take the gloves off. And so I think in even more dire circumstances, you'd have some of the same calls for Putin. And the question is, if he believes that our response would amount a little bit more than harsh communications from the State Department and increased sanctions, that might increase the chances that he would actually roll the dice and make that horrible decision.

REICHARD: Well let’s talk about the latest developments in Ukraine. Of course, last week, a huge explosion damaged the bridge linking Crimea to Russia. Putin ordered the building of that bridge after illegally annexing Crimea in 2014. And he personally celebrated its opening by being the first one to drive a truck over it. So this is symbolically important to Putin. It’s also a key supply line for Russian forces. Bradley, talk about the importance of this bridge blast.

BOWMAN: I think you hit a lot of the key elements there are me exactly right. I mean, the Kremlin invaded Crimea in 2014 and illegally annexed it. And this has been a great source of pride for Vladimir Putin. And the primary means by which Russia is connected to Crimea is via this Kerch bridge and the Crimea bridge, a 12 mile span that includes both a roadway and a railway. And the offensive, the Russian invasion—particularly in the South—has largely been supplied via that bridge. It's a matter of national pride for the Kremlin, and particularly for Putin. And it's a matter of practical logistical necessity in terms of supporting the invading forces, particularly in the South, around the Kherson region, and so the fact that apparently, the Ukrainians were able to pull this off was quite a blow to Putin. And may explain some of the response that we've seen since then.

REICHARD: What do we actually know about that blast to the bridge? Many people assume it was Ukrainian special forces that carried out the bridge attack. But this was a very heavily guarded bridge, correct?

BOWMAN: Yeah. As far as I can tell, it was likely a Ukrainian attack. But you know, Vladimir Putin has called it a terrorist act, which is pretty ironic given his deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians himself all over Ukraine. Ukraine has not taken explicit credit for it, but has applauded the attack. And so it would appear that this was a Ukrainian action that they're happy to kind of leave a little bit ambiguous at the moment.

REICHARD: Ukraine is asking Washington and NATO for more air defenses after Russia launched missile attacks in retaliation for the bridge explosion. What do they need that we are not currently providing?

BOWMAN: You know, the United States and some of our Western allies have provided some air defense assets already. We've provided 1,400 Stinger anti aircraft systems. We've committed to providing eight national advanced surface to air missile systems. But none of those have arrived yet. And the White House has said that they're going to try to expedite that delivery. And thankfully, some of our, as I said, our European allies, such as the Germans have said that they're going to provide air defense systems as well. But that's all really a drop in the bucket of what Ukraine really needs when you look at the breadth, scope, and quantity of the missile attacks conducted by Russia against Ukraine.

REICHARD: Final question: What do you think it will take to actually bring this war to an end?

BOWMAN: You know, I think the quickest way for it to end would be Vladimir Putin to end this unprovoked invasion, but I don't see many signs that he's interested in doing that. He's escalating, not de-escalating. And all paths forward have some risks associated with them. But I think the least dangerous path that best secures America's interests and stands up for our democratic principles is to continue to provide Ukrainians the means to defend themselves against this unprovoked invasion, while making clear to the Kremlin that we're going to continue to do that but we have no designs on Russia territory proper, and no objection to the Russian state.

REICHARD: Bradley Bowman is senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Bradley, always a pleasure to speak with you.

BOWMAN: Thank you.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.