Here’s How Harris Should Respond to Putin’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling
Here’s How Harris Should Respond to Putin’s Nuclear Saber-Rattling
An opportunity to demonstrate strength, stand with Ukraine, and set herself apart from both Trump and Biden.
LAST FRIDAY, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN threatened that any country supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles capable of striking deep into Russia would be “at war” with Russia. Non-coincidentally, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met President Joe Biden at the White House later that day to discuss providing Kyiv such weapons.
The Biden administration, while claiming deserved credit for uniting NATO in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, has lagged behind some allies in its willingness to give Ukraine the tools it needs to win. Vice President Kamala Harris, already running as a change candidate, has an opportunity to do well by doing good: She could announce her intention, if elected, to give more plentiful and more sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. That would reinforce her campaign’s theme of new beginnings, divide her opposition, and strengthen the most important cause in the world.
Indeed, she should be as unimpressed by Putin’s bluster as European leaders were. After Putin’s threat last Friday, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk advised, “I would not attach excessive importance to the latest statements from President Putin. They rather show the difficult situation the Russians have on the front.”
Donald Trump, not surprisingly, has been incapable of matching Tusk’s sangfroid. In his debate with Harris, while evading the question of whether he wanted Ukraine to win its war of self-defense with Russia, Trump said of Putin: “He’s got nuclear weapons. Nobody ever thinks about that. And eventually, maybe he’ll use them.”
In the context of Trump’s previous, not-very-veiled threats to end American aid to Ukraine if he’s elected president, the only question is whether he’s actually intimidated by Putin’s threats or merely using them as an excuse to do what he wants—abandon a democracy to the rapacious jaws of an increasingly totalitarian dictator.
The difference between Tusk and Trump isn’t just one of fortitude or temperament. There is evidence to suggest that Tusk is objectively right about the non-credibility of Putin’s threats. He has rattled the nuclear saber over and over again, warning global democracies against supplying military aid of any kind to Ukraine, against the provision of F-16 fighter jets, and against any attacks on Russian territory. Ukraine’s Western supporters, after repeated delays that often cost the Ukrainians valuable time and lives, have crossed each of these supposed “red lines” without incurring Putin’s putative nuclear wrath. Lamely, after making one such threat earlier this year, Putin even puffed, “This is not a bluff.” But it was.
PUTIN’S RHETORIC LIKELY ACCOUNTS for Biden’s tendency to trail some European allies in supplying arms. At the simplest level, Biden’s caution is understandable, considering that the consequences of misunderstanding could be, as Biden has said, “armageddon.” But two and a half years after Putin launched his full-scale invasion, we can better assess the effect that approach has had on Ukraine’s outlook, Europe’s safety, and ultimately American and global security. Putin’s threats to use nuclear weapons have consistently led Biden and his team to pause. After a dozen such feints, they should no longer be cowed.
In fact, the Biden administration should weigh Putin’s threats against his June statement that “there is no such need” to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. That was likely a concession that there are no realistic use cases in which a nuclear weapon would help Putin win his war. Notably, Putin has not rescinded Russia’s signature of the joint statement of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in January 2022 that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
LAST THURSDAY, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor predicted that Vice President Harris, if elected to the presidency, would send supplies to meet Ukraine’s military needs more aggressively than Biden has. The Trump-Harris debate gave Taylor good reason for that prediction. Harris made clear that she disdained Trump’s apparent appeasement. She told Trump straight up that if he were president, “Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now . . . with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland.” Turning to her rival, she added: “And why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of . . . what you think is a friendship with . . . a dictator.”
Harris sounded like past Republican presidents, warning of the risks of accommodating expansionist authoritarians. She should press the advantage. For years, Trump has avoided almost any comment on Russia’s war against Ukraine—apart from a vague promise to end it “in twenty-four hours”—because he knows that his base is divided. Many Republicans still hold to the foreign policy traditions of the pre-Trump party. According to a recent poll, only one-third of Republicans favor a withdrawal of all American aid to Ukraine and 45 percent of Republicans think a Russian victory in Ukraine would hurt America’s standing in the world.
The war in Ukraine won’t be the deciding issue in the 2024 election—yet Harris could benefit from raising its profile. The vice president has already cast herself as a “change” candidate. She could further set herself apart from both Trump, with his disturbing admiration for Putin, and Biden, with his overly cautious approach to aid, by telling Americans she will quickly provide Kyiv with arms to match Russia’s nonnuclear weaponry unless Putin withdraws his forces and comes to the peace table. Harris, by doing so, would be both making a savvy political move and sending an important signal about American strength and her willingness to stand firmly with the Ukrainian people against Putin’s aggression.
 | A guest post by
|