US Counting on Putin To Signal Before Using Nukes

Hats off to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines for her Senate May
10 testimony on the likelihood of nuclear war with Russia, even though parts
of it were surreal, as we discuss below.

From an intelligence perspective, she told it like it is. Not only that; she
took the quintessential nuclear-use question a step beyond what CIA
Director William Burns had told the Financial Times on May 7. Burns
pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin “doesn’t believe he can
afford to lose” in Ukraine. Burns added:

“I don’t think this means Putin is deterred at this point because he
staked so much on the choice that he made to launch this invasion that I think
he’s convinced right now that doubling down still will enable him to make progress.”

Whether or not Burns read our
brief VIPS Memo of May 1, it was, frankly, good to see that he and we were
on the same page regarding the key judgment that the Ukraine conflict is a must-win
for Putin.

Ms. Haines took VIPs’ warning (about an “existential threat” to Russia)
a step further. Swallowing hard and, uncharacteristically, stammering a little,
she
answered THE big question when asked by Sen. Mark Warner (D, VA):

“We’re supporting Ukraine but also we don’t want to ultimately end
up in World War III and we don’t want to end up in a situation where actors
are using nuclear weapons. Our view is, as General Berrier indicated, there’s
not a sort of an imminent potential for Putin to use nuclear weapons. We perceive
that … as something that he is unlikely to do unless there is effectively an
existential threat to his regime and to Russia from his perspective.

“We do think that that could be the case in the event he perceives
that he is losing the war in Ukraine, and that NATO is sort of, in effect, either
intervening or about to intervene in that context, which would obviously contribute
to a perception that he is about to lose the war in Ukraine.

“But that there are a lot of things that he would do in the context
of escalation before he would get to a nuclear weapon, and also that he would
be likely to engage in some signaling beyond what he has done thus far before
doing so.”

Do You Dare Follow the Logic in this Syllogism?

Major Premise: We don’t want to end up in WWIII, using nuclear weapons.

Minor Pemise: Putin may use them if he perceives that he is losing the
war in Ukraine.

Conclusion: Thus the U.S. will do what it takes to make Putin “perceive”
he is losing in Ukraine.

See what I mean about surreal? Oh, but not to worry; Putin will probably first
signal “beyond what he has done thus far” before using nukes. Right!

Putin Need Not Be Paranoid

It did not take a tirade by Sen. Lindsey Graham, or the outspoken “Victory
Over Russia in Ukraine” pledges of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader
Chuck Schumer, or the “weakening Russia” objective advertised by
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to give President Putin a complex. Nor is it
some kind of surprise to him that he is atop the list of those to be removed
by “regime change.” What causes wonderment is the nonchalant way that
prominent US policy officials proceed willy nilly, apparently without really
comprehending the dangers at hand – even when those dangers are laid out before
them by top intelligence officials like Haines and Burns.

Putin, of course, is under no illusions. He is only too well aware that this
is what the U.S.-arranged coup d’etat in Kyiv in 2014 (rightly labeled
the “most blatant coup in history”), was all about. That coup sharpened
the Kremlin’s understanding of the existential threat Russia faced. If confirmation
were needed, it came – surprisingly – from the US Defense Intelligence Agency.
In DIA’s Dec. 2015 “National Security Strategy Report,” DIA Director
Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart asserted:

“The Kremlin is convinced the US is laying the groundwork for regime
change in Russia, a conviction further reinforced by the events in Ukraine.
Moscow views the US as the critical driver behind the crisis in Ukraine and
believes that the overthrow of Yanukovych is the latest move in a long-established
pattern of U.S.-orchestrated regime change efforts.”

So, you don’t have to be paranoid … Paranoia or not, the likelihood that nuclear
weapons might be used if Putin “perceives” he is losing in Ukraine
is NOT something to be treated with such nonchalance. Reasonable policy makers
would be well advised to change the Conclusion resting beneath those
premises in the fateful syllogism depicted above.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical
Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA
analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer
of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS).