Last week, U.S. Senator J.D. Vance took to X to warn that when Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike targets in Russia, he believes, “the risk of nuclear war is (now) higher now than at any point in my lifetime. Biden is sleepwalking into World War 3.”
He’s not wrong.
Washington is on a course that is increasing the risk of war with Russia, whether by means of mistake, miscalculation, or misinterpretation.
Accepting risk is sometimes warranted. In this situation, however, the U.S. is carelessly flirting with the risk of nuclear war, and there is zero potential benefit for our legitimate interests.
Even before the Russia-Ukraine War started, there were many analysts worried about the potential of America’s support for Ukraine getting the U.S. drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. There were many categories of support even some supporters of Kyiv worried might prove to be “red lines” for Moscow and result in an expansion of the war. Late in 2021, NATO directly providing any weapons were suspected of crossing Putin’s red lines.
Later there were concerns over American 155mm howitzers, then MiG-29 jets from allied countries, modern tanks, armored personnel carriers, Patriot air defense systems, precision guided missiles, NATO training and intelligence support, and lately long-range missiles and F-16 fighter jets. All of those things were either provided or are about to be employed, and yet none of them caused Russia to escalate the war beyond the borders of Ukraine.
To Ukraine’s backers, the lesson was clear: because Russia had never attacked the West over the crossing of all the previous “red lines,” they never would. But that is a bad assessment and fails to even consider the rationale upon which Putin likely based his decision to show self-restraint in each of those previous cases – or to consider the circumstances upon which Putin may strike at the West in the future.
From early 2023, the Russians stabilized the front and began producing significant defensive fortifications throughout the parts of the Donbass they occupied. They eventually built a world-class series of defensive lines that Ukraine proved wholly incapable of breaching in their summer 2023 offensive. From late 2023 to the present, Russia has been on a steady move to the west, taking more and more territory. Their military industrial capacity is reportedly firing on all cylinders, and they are recruiting more than enough men to build an army in Ukraine now more than double the original invasion force, numbering close to 500,000 troops.
So long as those conditions continue, it is in Russia’s interest to endure the Western weapons and ammunition and avoid unnecessarily escalation that could bring the Western alliance into direct conflict with Russian forces. But early in the war, a different set of conditions existed for Russia, and we now know that the risk of nuclear escalation was dangerously high.
CNN national security correspondent Jim Sciutto published earlier this year an investigation that revealed American officials feared Russia was on the cusp of ordering a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine in the late summer 2022. At the time Russia had suffered its worst battlefield defeats of the war, losing Kherson City and being driven out of a huge swath of territory near Kharkiv. Sciutto reports that American officials were alarmed that Putin feared losing the war and might order a tactical nuclear strike to forestall defeat.
So long as Russia is winning and its territory isn’t threatened, that will likely remain a dormant threat. Now, however, Biden and other Western leaders seem intent on destabilizing the situation by authorizing the use of western arms on Russian territory.
Putin has recently signaled his alarm at NATO willingness to use its assets to directly attack targets in Russia, and a willingness to use nuclear weapons. In a visit to Tashkent, Putin said that NATO choosing to allow its weapons to be used on Russian territory is an escalation that “can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say. Do they want global conflict?”
And that is a valid question, regardless of the source. American vital national interests require preventing the war from spilling beyond Ukraine’s borders, ensuring security and stability in Europe, and in avoiding any unnecessary conflicts for our Armed Forces. None of those objectives are advanced by targeting Russian territory with U.S.-supplied weapons.
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow & Military Expert at Defense Priorities, with four combat deployments, and host of Daniel Davis Deep Dive show on YouTube.
