Jonathan is a staff writer and editor of the Early Bird Brief newsletter for Military Times. Follow him on Twitter @lehrfeld_media

Load More

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has insisted that Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine despite threats to do so if attacked, noting that Washington sees no evidence suggesting such moves.

“I don’t see anything right now that would lead me to believe that he [Russian President Vladimir Putin] has made such a decision,” Austin said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Saturday and due to be aired on Sunday.

The Pentagon chief said that Washington had previously communicated these concerns to Moscow via top-level channels. When asked if he had any recent contacts with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, Austin responded negatively.

Despite claiming that “there are no checks on Putin,” the Pentagon chief dismissed recent warnings by the Russian president – including his vow that he was not “bluffing” about Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear arms “to defend Russia and our people” – as unworthy of a global superpower. 

“This nuclear saber-rattling is not the kind of thing that we would expect to hear from leaders of large countries with capability,” Austin underlined, but then added: “Just as [Putin] made the irresponsible decision to invade Ukraine, you know, he could make another decision” to use nuclear weapons there. 

His remarks came after US officials and mainstream media outlets accused the Russian president of making “nuclear threats” against Ukraine in his speech to the nation on September 21, when he declared partial mobilization and status referendums in eastern Ukrainian regions of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye.

What Putin had actually stated, however, was that Kiev and its Western sponsors had “resorted to nuclear blackmail,” insisting that Moscow would not hesitate to respond in kind if its security interests were threatened.

“I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia,” Putin said at the time.

“I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries possess,” he then emphasized. “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”

The US defense secretary further claimed that Washington had previously communicated to his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu not to “go down this path and conduct this type of irresponsible behavior,” but when asked if he had any recent contacts with Shoigu, Austin responded negatively.

The Russian defense minister has repeatedly clarified that Moscow’s nuclear doctrine only allows the use of such weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened” and last month rejected the notion of using nukes in Ukraine as “absurd.” 

The development came a day after Deputy head of Russia’s security council Dmitry Medvedev slammed Ukraine’s renewed bid to promptly join the US-led NATO military alliance as an effort that would only “hasten the start of World War III.”

“[Ukrainian President Vladimir] Zelensky wants to speed up NATO membership. Great idea. He just begs NATO to hasten the start of World War III,” Medvedev wrote in a Friday post on his Telegram channel as cited by Russia’s TASS news agency.

The statements came after the Ukrainian president formally applied for a fast-track NATO membership following the signing of a decree by his Russian counterpart for the formal accession of former eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson after holding referendums that overwhelmingly favored the move.

Washington, meanwhile, has repeatedly warned Moscow against the use of nuclear weapons, threatening “catastrophic” consequences as Kiev continues to shell the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, putting the world “on the brink of nuclear catastrophe,” in the words of Russian State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin.

This is while US officials have so far been evasive about how they would respond to a potential Russian nuclear strike, with President Joe Biden merely vowing that Russia would become an international “pariah,” suggesting that Washington’s response would depend “on the extent of what they do.”

Such warnings are intentionally vague, US officials told the Washington Post last month, and are delivered with the intent to create “strategic ambiguity” and keep the Kremlin on its toes about the response.

US senator vows ‘catastrophic’ response if Russia nukes Ukraine

Hawkish US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also claimed on Thursday that any Russian use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be considered as an attack on “NATO itself,” prompting a “catastrophic” response.

Speaking during a joint press conference with Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the North Carolina senator further insisted that in such an attack the radiation “would not be confined to Ukraine, you would be irradiating parts of Europe that are under the NATO banner.”

“If that day ever comes — and I hope and pray it doesn’t — [a nuclear strike] should be considered by NATO writ large and the United States as an attack by Russia on NATO itself,” he emphasized.

Graham and Blumenthal called the press conference to unveil legislation blocking foreign aid to any country recognizing the results of the referendums in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s move Friday to annex parts of southern and eastern Ukraine amid Moscow’s war in the country has elevated the stakes of the conflict, threatening to bring the Kremlin’s struggling military campaign closer to the doorsteps of the West.  

The stunning move has prompted a flurry of activity across the globe, including new U.S. and Group of Seven (G-7) sanctions targeting Russian government and military officials and their family members, international condemnation, calls for more weapons for Kyiv and a fresh push from Ukraine to join NATO.  

But Putin’s actions — an indication he has dug in his heels in his military campaign against Ukraine — have much broader and longer-term repercussions for the future, experts say. What exactly those will be, however, are hard to discern, with experts expressing a deep uncertainty over where the situation will go from here. 

“I think there will be continued warnings about breaking any of the red lines that have been put down. And there will be, I think, further strengthening of sanctions … Beyond that, it’s hard to anticipate exactly what might happen,” said career ambassador Thomas Pickering, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as well as Russia.  

Putin on Friday signed four “ascension treaties” to annex the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine after holding sham referendums in the areas. 

“This is the will of millions of people,” Putin told hundreds of dignitaries amid a lavish ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow. 

Much of the world, including members of the G-7 and the European Union, have already vowed to never recognize the land grab, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the move a “farce.”  

“The entire territory of our country will be liberated,” Zelensky promised in a pre-recorded video released after Putin’s speech. 

The annexations are the biggest territory grab in Europe since World War II and come as Putin has grown increasingly aggressive in his rhetoric due to a markedly successful Ukrainian counteroffensive earlier this month that took back large swaths of ground and forced Moscow’s forces to retreat. 

Putin continued that saber-rattling in a speech laden with anti-Western sentiments, pledging to defend the newly claimed regions with “all available means,” a non-veiled threat to use nuclear weapons. 

Russia has dangled the threat of an attack with a nuclear weapon since the start of its invasion of Ukraine, but the new land steal has spiked fears over how Moscow will respond to attacks in these territories now declared part of the Kremlin.

“Would he actually go to the use of nuclear weapons? Nobody knows. But it remains obviously something that he’s unprepared now to take off the table,” Pickering told The Hill. 

Another question raised is whether the Russians will stick to their messaging that taking the eastern-most area of Ukraine known as the Donbas region remains the limited objective of their invasion, as suggested in Putin’s speech. The Kremlin has focused on taking the area since its failed campaign to topple Kyiv, but it’s unclear whether Moscow will be open to ending the war should that be achieved.  

“Would that in its own way lead to discussions that could take place diplomatically over next steps that might tone things down? I think that’s a very optimistic view, but a moment not very likely given Mr. Putin’s dug in responses on every development that has taken place of upping the ante,” Pickering noted. 

Also undetermined is the renewed debate over whether NATO should allow Ukraine to join after the country on Friday announced it will file an expedited application to the military alliance, which Kyiv has sought to enter since Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.  

The United States quickly urged that such a process “should be taken up at a different time,” according to national security adviser Jake Sullivan. 

“Right now, our view is that the best way for us to support Ukraine is through practical, on-the-ground support in Ukraine and that the process in Brussels should be taken up at a different time,” Sullivan told reporters Friday.   

But Jonathan Katz, director of Democracy Initiatives and a senior fellow with The German Marshall Fund of the United States, said Ukraine’s NATO bid is a serious application in the wake of Putin’s speech and amid his ongoing desperate bids to make gains in a war that has become bogged down in its seventh month.  

“It is not far-fetched that Ukraine — which will need security guarantees going forward, given Russia’s unrelenting war and Mr. Putin’s unwillingness to end this cycle of violence against Ukraine — they will need to be given some type of security guarantee and NATO is the place to do that,” Katz said.  

“It must be taken seriously. … how can anyone think that Ukrainians, or the West, the transatlantic community, can be safe with Mr. Putin doing what he’s doing,” he added.  

The issue will likely come up at a meeting of defense ministers for the North Atlantic Council Oct. 12 and 13 at NATO Headquarters in Brussels.  

For now, U.S. and Western officials say they are focusing on crippling Russia through economic means, with the Biden administration on Friday announcing a new round of sanctions. 

The sanctions, which come from the departments of Treasury, Commerce and State and in coordination with members of the G-7, are meant to target Moscow’s decisionmakers, Putin’s allies and entities that support Russia’s military-industrial complex. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the sanctions are a clear warning that there will be “costs for any individual, entity, or country that provides political or economic support to Russia as a result of its illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory.” 

One thing’s certain in the aftermath of Putin’s move: continued U.S. support to Ukraine. 

The House on Friday passed a stopgap spending bill to stave off a government shutdown that included another $12.3 billion in aid for Ukraine.  

News also broke Friday that the Pentagon was preparing to step up efforts to train and equip Ukrainian troops through a proposal to create a new command based in Germany, as The New York Times reported. Such a command, which would be led by a top U.S. general, would streamline the current patchwork of training and assistance given to the Ukrainian military by the U.S. and allies since Russia attacked the country in February, according to the Times. 

And House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaul (R-Texas) on Friday called for the U.S. and its allies to send Ukraine weapons it has so far held off from providing over fears doing so could escalate Russia’s ire. 

Zelensky advisor: Putin’s mobilization announcement ‘actually to our advantage’ Ukrainian intel shows Russian nuclear threat is ‘very high’: top Zelensky aide

“I urge the Biden administration to finally provide longer-range artillery, like [Army Tactical Missile System]. And I also urge key allies to immediately transfer much-needed systems, including German Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles,” McCaul said in a statement.  

Earlier this week the administration pledged another $1.1 million in lethal aid to the embattled country, bringing the total Pentagon commitment to Ukraine to more than $16 billion since February.  

The latest dollars will go to contracts for weapons to be delivered over the next several years — a signal that the U.S. believes Russia will continue to threaten Ukraine and the region for years to come.