Biden riffs on Armageddon

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board says the US president’s riff on the threat of nuclear Armageddon won’t reassure anyone.

Vladimir Putin lacks the conventional military power to win, but can’t afford to lose a war without risking his position at home. Picture: AFP

President Joe Biden will never be a great communicator, but his latest riff at a campaign fundraiser on the threat of nuclear Armageddon won’t reassure anyone.

He succeeded mainly in demonstrating his own anxiety, which isn’t the right message to send Vladimir Putin or the American people.

Rolling along on Thursday in routine remarks about the reasons donors should support Democrats – after comments on Africa and before the Supreme Court – Biden chose to dilate on the end of the world.

“Think about it. We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. We’ve got a guy I know fairly well; his name is Vladimir Putin. I spent a fair amount of time with him. He is not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical and nuclear weapons, or biological or chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming,” Biden told the Democratic worthies.

“It’s part of Russian doctrine that they will not – they will not – if the motherland is threatened, they’ll use whatever force they need, including nuclear weapons. I don’t think there’s any such thing as an ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

Pass the canapes and make my next drink a double. It’s tempting to pass this off as one of Biden’s random soliloquies that the White House quickly walks back. Recall the three times he’s said the US will defend Taiwan militarily, which his staff explained away each time. And sure enough, on Friday the White House told reporters there was no new information about Putin’s intentions that had prompted Biden’s focus on the bomb.

Yet that’s hardly reassuring since Putin has threatened to use tactical nukes, and it isn’t clear the Russian believes in the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent. US vows of “consequences” didn’t stop him from making the catastrophic mistake of invading Ukraine. Biden didn’t help on this score when he also said at the fundraiser that “we’re trying to figure out: What – what is Putin’s off-ramp? Where – where does he get off? Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?”

If you’re Putin, you might interpret that to mean Biden is looking for his own off-ramp, and that maybe escalating with a nuclear explosion would cause Biden and Europe to give him a ramp that includes a large chunk of Ukraine.

Biden is right about how dangerous Putin is now that his military is losing ground in Ukraine. He has trapped himself in a place where he lacks the conventional military power to win, but he can’t afford to lose a war without risking his position at home.

The war has revealed the low morale and discipline of Russian forces, and his mobilisation of 300,000 more men may not stop Ukraine’s advances. He faces growing criticism in Russia for the war’s mismanagement. All of this suggests no small risk of nuclear escalation. But such a step would also carry grave risks for Putin.

The battlefield utility of tactical nukes is limited against dispersed forces, and his own troops would be vulnerable. He’d poison with radiation land he hopes to own. He could lose the support of the allies he has left, such as China and India. President Xi Jinping doesn’t want to see the first use of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki prompt Japan to get a bomb.

Putin might hope to demoralise Ukraine enough by nuking a city, but the opposite effect is more likely. Ukraine’s fury would cause it to press on, no doubt with more support from the US and NATO. Which brings us back to Biden. If he really does fear a nuclear escalation, he owes more of an explanation to the American people than cocktail-party doomsday chatter. He needs to marshal support in congress and around the world to do everything possible to deter Putin.

A crucial part of deterrence in a democracy is preparing the public for the challenges it might confront. Instead his comments have needlessly frightened Americans and maybe undermined deterrence.

The Wall Street Journal