Analysis: Evaluating the Severity of Putin's Threats Towards Biden

There appears to be a prevailing belief among some members of the National Security Council in the Biden administration: they are very cautious about escalating conflicts. These individuals, referred to as "escalationists," are highly concerned that providing more assistance to Ukraine might result in a global conflict.

France and Germany have now joined the UK and other countries in stating that the weapons they provide to Ukraine may be used in attacks on Russian territory. In response, Russian President Vladmir Putin has warned of potential "serious consequences," especially for "small and densely populated countries." Putin has made similar threats in the past, often mentioning Russia's nuclear arsenal, as Western support for Ukraine has increased. It's time for the US to stop giving these threats so much weight.

Now, let's take a look back at some recent history.

Russian soldiers march during the Victory Day military parade dress rehearsal at the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, Sunday, May 5, 2024. The parade will take place at Moscow's Red Square on May 9 to celebrate 79 years of the victory in WWII. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Russian soldiers are seen marching during the dress rehearsal for the Victory Day military parade at the Red Square in Moscow, Russia. The parade is scheduled to take place on May 9 to commemorate the 79th anniversary of the victory in WWII.

Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

Related article

Opinion: Russia may be at risk of losing the war

Ukraine asked for Javelins and Stingers before the full-scale war started in February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. At first, they didn't get as many as they wanted because people were worried about things getting worse. But in the end, they got more, used them well, and got even more. There was no nuclear war.

After winning the battle of Kyiv, Ukraine asked Poland for MiG-29s. Poland agreed to provide them in exchange for Western fighters. At first, the Biden administration blocked the deal, but later on, they agreed to it. Luckily, this decision helped prevent a nuclear war.

When Ukraine requested F-16 fighter jets to safeguard their skies, the administration initially declined. However, they eventually changed their position and approved the request. This decision also played a crucial role in avoiding a potential nuclear conflict.

Ukraine asked for Patriot missiles to protect against Russian air attacks, and initially, the administration refused. However, they later agreed, and thankfully, no nuclear war broke out. Many lives were spared.

Similarly, Ukraine requested HIMARS rocket launchers, a sophisticated missile and artillery system, to target Russian supply routes. At first, the administration declined, but eventually, they approved the request. This decision played a crucial role in preventing a nuclear conflict and saving numerous lives.

Ukraine initially requested Abrams tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles for trench warfare in the east. The administration refused at first, but later changed its decision, resulting in no nuclear war.

Similarly, Ukraine also asked for ATACMS missiles, which have a range of about 190 miles, to target Russian sites. Initially, the administration denied the request but eventually reversed its stance, preventing any possibility of a nuclear conflict.

In almost all of these instances, Russia would threaten to escalate the situation by attacking NATO or even using nuclear weapons. However, each time they made these threats, Ukraine was able to stand its ground and defend its territory effectively.

Adam Kinzinger and Ben Hodges

In most of these situations, Russia would threaten to escalate, attack NATO, or even use nuclear weapons. However, each time they made these threats, Ukraine was able to defend itself better. While it's important to take Russian threats seriously, history has shown that these threats often turn out to be empty. Back during the Cold War, the US didn't let nuclear threats stop them from pursuing their foreign policy goals.

Just think about what could have happened if we had given Ukraine all the weapons mentioned earlier right from the beginning. After Russia's counteroffensive in 2022, they were struggling, disorganized, and finding it hard to recruit more troops. With those weapons, Ukraine could have potentially ended the war, or at least had a much more successful counteroffensive in 2023, leading to a quicker end to the conflict.

Some argue that the Biden administration's cautious approach has allowed the US to provide more military support to Ukraine without provoking Russia. However, war does not operate in a predictable manner. The fear of Russia using nuclear weapons has been proven unfounded. Just as we escalate pressure gradually, Russia can also increase its pain threshold and respond whenever it chooses.

It is crucial to keep these factors in mind as Ukraine persistently seeks approval to target military sites in Russia using American weapons. Although their requests have been turned down so far, it is likely that they will eventually be granted. Therefore, why wait? Why delay when Ukrainian lives are being lost?

At a news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that France had authorized Ukrainian forces to use the weapons sent to them, such as long-range missiles, to target Russian bases.

Speaking at a news conference alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron outlined that French weapons sent to Ukraine, including long-range missiles, were permitted to target bases inside Russia.

We initially respected the ban on attacking Russian territory while Ukraine was focused on defending Kyiv. It was not practical to divert resources to retaliatory strikes during the territorial battles. However, as the conflict shifted to a prolonged artillery exchange in eastern Ukraine after Russian forces withdrew from Kyiv, maintaining this restriction no longer made any sense.

Currently, Ukrainians are facing Russian air attacks using glide bombs. They are aware of where these attacks are coming from, but they are unable to retaliate against those locations.

It is crucial to manage the escalation of the situation and provide support to Ukraine without turning a blind eye. The US, by offering lethal aid, should have a say in how the aid is utilized. However, when Ukraine is in a life-threatening situation, they should have the freedom to decide the best course of action to protect their land and people.

We have heard Ukrainian soldiers share accounts of Russian attacks, being pushed back, and withdrawing to Russian territory to regroup, eat, strategize, and launch another attack. In traditional warfare, this retreat and regrouping phase is when you should intensify your own offensive, causing confusion, fear, and weakening the enemy's resolve and spirit. For Ukraine to succeed, Russia cannot be allowed to target civilians without consequences and take breaks on their own turf.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter for free.

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Ukraine is fighting for its survival as well as for the collective West and the post-World War II order. The Biden administration must clearly define the US objectives in supporting Ukraine to avoid the mistakes made in Vietnam and Afghanistan. A well-defined strategic goal is crucial for achieving victory in this conflict. The question remains: does the US support a Ukrainian victory, and if so, what does that victory entail and how can it be achieved swiftly? Alternatively, is the US backing a war of attrition until Russia is willing to negotiate?

According to military experts, defeating the enemy is essential for victory, whether in direct combat or disrupting their planning and execution of the war. The current situation where Russia can consider its territory a "safe haven" against US weapons contradicts the goal of a Ukrainian victory.

Ukraine has refrained from attacking legitimate military targets due to a fear of escalation, even though international law allows for self-defense. The Biden administration's support for Ukraine is commendable, especially compared to the previous threat of abandonment under former President Donald Trump. However, this fear of escalation, although well-intentioned, may be hindering Ukraine's chances of achieving victory.

Editor's P/S:

The article highlights the escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over the provision of weapons to Ukraine. The Biden administration's cautious approach, driven by concerns about provoking Russia, has been criticized by some who believe it has hindered Ukraine's ability to defend itself effectively. The article argues that the administration's fear of escalation is unfounded, as history has shown that Russia's threats of nuclear retaliation have often been empty. It suggests that the US should provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to target Russian military sites, as this would strengthen Ukraine's position and potentially lead to a quicker end to the conflict.

The article also raises the issue of whether the US objectives in supporting Ukraine are clearly defined. It argues that a well-defined strategic goal is crucial for achieving victory in this conflict and that the US must decide whether it supports a Ukrainian victory or a war of attrition until Russia is willing to negotiate. The article concludes by emphasizing that Ukraine has the right to self-defense under international law and that the Biden administration's fear of escalation may be hindering Ukraine's chances of achieving victory.