The Daily Signal - Russia’s ‘Mock Nuclear Strike’ on Ukraine Sends Clear Message to US, Expert Says

Episode Date: November 27, 2024

Last week, Russia fired an intermediate range ballistic missile at Ukraine. The missile, according to nuclear deterrence and missile defense expert Robert Peters, is designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads, sending a clear message to Washington to “knock it off.”  Since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, America has told Ukraine that it could use the provided weapons only within the “borders of Ukraine to expel the Russian forces,” says Peters, who before becoming a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation served as the lead strategist at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.  Then, in mid-November, President Joe Biden gave Ukraine permission to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to hit targets inside Russia. Ukraine wasted no time in firing one.  Almost immediately afterward, Russia issued a new doctrine on its use of nuclear weapons. As Peters summarizes it, Russia warns “that if anyone conducts deep, penetrating strikes inside of Russia to include using conventional missiles or aircraft or even drones, Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons.”  Russia also said that a nation that supplied the weapons also could become the target of a retaliatory nuclear strike by Russia.  Russia’s decision to fire the ballistic missile Thursday at Ukraine can be considered a “mock nuclear strike,” Peters says.  Russian President Vladimir Putin “doesn't want a nuclear war,” Peters says. “He doesn't want to fight the United States. But he really, really can't stand that we're giving [Ukraine] these kinds of precise, long-range, deep-penetrating strike capabilities. And he's trying to get us to stop, and he may be willing to use these [nuclear] weapons. It's hard to say.”  Peters joins this episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss how the U.S. should proceed in its foreign policy with Ukraine, why a nuclear war would look different than many Americans imagine, and the likelihood that World War III might be approaching.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New weapons are being introduced in the war between Russia and Ukraine. What does this mean for the ongoing conflict? It's Wednesday, November 27th, and I am your host, Virginia Allen. Well, in lieu of top news today, I'm so pleased to be sitting down with Heritage Foundation Research Fellow in Nuclear Deterrence and Missile Defense Robert Peters for an in-depth conversation about the latest weapons that are being used in the war between Russia and Ukraine. We discuss what these changes mean for the conflict and for the United States. Stay tuned for our conversation after this. Your government is out of control.

It's doing things it has no business doing. It spends way too much money. It gets involved in way too many wars. It not only tells you what you can and can't say, it actively censors you. And the things your government should do, it can't, or worse, won't do it all. It can't keep your streets clean of crime and filth.

It can't keep your neighborhoods safe enough for kids to play outside. It can't even prevent your country from being invaded by millions of illegal immigrants. Why is that? Because your leaders no longer represent you, they represent themselves and their friends. In my new show, The Signal Sit Down, will expose how the sausage really gets made

in Washington, D.C., with guests who have experience on the inside. Fingers will be pointed, names will be named. You ready? Well, I am joined now by Robert Peters. He serves as a research fellow in nuclear deterrence and missile defense at the Heritage Foundation. Bob, thanks so much for being here today.

Yeah, it's my pleasure. Thanks for having me. So let's start with some current events, some of the recent happenings that we've seen in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Just last week, Russia fired an intermediate range ballistic missile at Ukraine. First, let's just start by talking about what exactly that weapon is. Yeah, so that is a type of ballistic missile that was outlawed for about 20, 25 years. And President Trump withdrew the United States from the treaty that outlawed those. weapons. So those are the missiles that President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev outlawed in the famous

picture from 1987. Basically, for 10 years, the U.S. Department of State found out that the Russians were cheating on the treaty, and so President Trump withdrew us from that. And so this is the first employment of this type of ballistic missile that was designed to carry multiple nuclear warheads and shower a target with multiple independence reentry vehicles. So the idea was it would be fired against targets in Western Europe and then irradiate large swaths of Western Europe using nuclear warheads. And so this attack was using that class of weapon. And what they did was they removed the nuclear warheads from it and then put conventional warheads underneath the nose cone. Okay. So if it's used with those conventional warheads, how much damage can it do?

So, of course, conventional high explosives have far less damage than a nuclear warhead. This one had limited damage, but the point was not actually to create damage against the target. The target was was NEPRO Ukraine. That wasn't the point of the attack. The point of the attack was to signal against the West, particularly Washington, D.C. And was that because that use of that weapon came just a handful of days after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use U.S. long-range ballistic missiles? So that's a great question. I'm really glad to ask. So let's roll the tape back. Yeah. So from the outside of the war, the United States and many other capitals put restrictions on how the weapons that we provide Ukraine could be employed on the battlefield.

And by and large, it was whatever we give you, you can use inside the borders of Ukraine to expel the Russian forces. Because the fear was that if the Ukrainians got too aggressive in the employment of these weapons against the Russians, that the Russians could respond with their own non-structural. or low-yield nuclear weapons, right? Warheads with a relatively small yield. I say small in quotes because these are kind of the size of weapons that we use to destroy Hiroshima in the end of the Second World War. That's small. Wow.

And they have about roughly 2,000 of them, according to the Department of Defense. So the idea was Ukraine, we're going to give these weapons, but don't shoot them inside Russia. Over time, Russia has issued a number of nuclear threats since the war began. And it kind of goes up and down. It kind of goes in waves. And then about 10 days ago, President Biden lifted the restrictions on a type of long-range army artillery called attackums.

And so they said, you can shoot them inside Russia, which Ukraine immediately did. Almost immediately after this, Russia released a new nuclear employment doctrine. That said that if anyone conducts deep penetrating strikes inside of Russia, to include using conventional missiles, or aircraft or even drones, Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons. Moreover, any country that supplied those weapons to the attacker could be the target of a nuclear response from Russia. And moreover, if the country who supplied the weapons is part of any kind of alliance, then all of those countries in the alliance could be the target of a Russian nuclear attack. Then within 24 hours later, the Russian nuclear attack, the Russian,

Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said, we really don't want to have a nuclear war, you guys. Like, this is bad. We don't want this to happen. Then 24 hours after that, then we saw a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile, launch at NEPRO, nose cone came off, and it showered its target with multiple independent reentry vehicles,

just like a nuclear attack. It was the exact same way. And it was the first time in combat that we've ever seen a ballistic missile carrying multiple independent ran-try vehicles, mimic a nuclear strike, and used on target with effect. So what we saw was basically a messaging campaign by the Russians that said, knock it off Washington, we're really not pleased, and then they capped it off with a mock nuclear strike on Ukraine. So that's what we saw over the last 10 days.

Okay. So then what should the response be, how should the U.S. internalize that message? Because it's a very clear message. No, no, no, it's a very clear message. And look, you know, I'm with, you know, many of us here at Heritage that says, you know, we want Ukraine to be successful and it's fight for independence from the Russian invasion. But we have to be very clear about what is in American national interest. So Ukraine is a partner. It's not a NATO ally.

It is not under the American nuclear umbrella. You know, Ukraine is in many ways helping out American security by destroying Russian military capabilities that it can use to threaten actual NATO allies, like Finland and Poland and Estonian and so forth. And so that's good for our national interest. But if we approach the point where we could see a limited nuclear use by Russia on Ukraine, then everyone's going to be looking to Washington to say, well, what are you guys going to do? That's not an American national interest. To be very blunt, from my perspective, I don't think Ukraine is worth the United States stumbling into a limited nuclear war.

Well, and in my, correct me if I'm wrong, but Putin doesn't want war with the U.S. No, he doesn't. No, I mean, I think that's very clear. Yeah. And that's why he has not used any of these 2000 nuclear weapons that he's got in a stockpile. But, you know, I think he looks at all these long-range fires that the United States is providing, Germany, United Kingdom, France, others. And he's saying, God, you know, I'm not making, I'm making some slow advances on the battlefield, but I've taken. enormous losses. I'm now using North Korean or maybe even like hootie mercenaries in my army.

I need to get some kind of advantage here. And these, if the Americans continue to lift restrictions and keep giving the Ukrainians more and more, I need to get them to stop. Yeah. And they're not paying attention to my nuclear threats because we've got a bit of a boy who cried wolf, right, over the last two years of the Russians threatening to do this and we basically ignore it. But, you know, is Putin still crying wolf? It's hard to know. And so, you know, the children's tale, you know, what happened was the village never knew when the boy was actually telling the truth and when the wolf actually appeared. And so from my perspective, Putin doesn't want a nuclear war. He doesn't want to fight the United States, but he really, really can't stand that we're giving them these kind of precise, long-range, deep penetrating strike capabilities.

He's trying to get us to stop. And he may be willing to use these weapons. It's hard to say. So let's say we have, gosh, less than two months now before the Trump admin comes in. So let's say right now Biden keeps going on the trajectory. He's going on. We continue supplying Ukraine with resources and kind of giving them the green light to move forward, maybe in aggressive ways using these long-range weapons.

What do you expect to see from Russia? What is the likelihood they pull off those other missiles and they attach a nuclear one? So I don't know. I don't know. And it's hard to speculate, right? But I think we need to be honest with ourselves and say, this is a real possibility. I mean, the only way they could say they've had the presidential statements, they've had new nuclear employment guidance, the foreign minister, they have this mock nuclear strike. The only way that they could be more clearer is to actually light one off. Now, maybe they'd light one off in the battlefield. field. Maybe they'd find some uninhabited island off the coast of Siberia and test above

ground so that's very clear. We see the mushroom cloud. That's a possibility. But I think we need to be prepared that if we continue down this path that Russia could use nuclear weapons on Ukraine, and then whoever is in the White House, whether it's President Biden or President Trump or whomever, they're confronted with, well, what do I do? Because it's not good if I back down at this point, Because then it looks like, well, this is how you intimidate the United States, is they see some mushroom clouds and they go running. But if I continue to give these weapons to Ukraine, are they just going to continue to absorb more mushroom clouds? Could Russia say, well, I'm going to hit a target inside Poland? You know, we're putting a lot of munitions that then go into Ukraine and so forth and hit a weapons depot that we have in Poland.

Then that's an attack on NATO. And Poland is under the American nuclear umbrella. Then what happens? Yeah. So we're in a position where, from my perspective, again, Ukraine is not worth fighting a limited nuclear war over. And this is not to say that we're approaching World War III, but there are a lot of stages between where we are now in World War III, and that could include some mushroom clouds

going off. And that's simply not in our interest. Let's talk about that a little bit more, because World War III has been thrown around a lot in headlines. And I think when you use that term nuclear, everyone just goes right to the end of the world. everyone is dying. So explain what that kind of limited nuclear response would look like. Yeah, so you're absolutely right. So when people say World War III, like, I'm a child of the 80s. And so I think of like big missiles going over the poles and like cities getting blown up and all that.

That's, that's, we're nowhere near that at this point. But a limited nuclear war could be a small number, say half dozen, a dozen or so of will yield warheads, again, like the size of what we used to destroy Hiroshima with, going off and hitting military targets in Ukraine. And you could have several exchanges back and forth of will yield nuclear weapons between two nuclear armed adversaries that doesn't ever get to ICBMs going over the polls. That's still a war you really don't want to fight, right? Because there's all kinds of downward range hazards and nuclear fallout and things like that. No one wants to fight that war. But more to the point, no one knows how that war ends because there's never been a limited nuclear war that's fought. And so if two sides are exchanging half dozen or so nuclear warheads and a salvo and it's all against military targets and they're all will yield, how does that war actually end? That's the concern.

Yeah, it's hard to picture that not ending anything but escalation. Right. So then are we essentially in a new phase in the war between Russia and Ukraine or maybe more just a deciding point of are we entering a new phase or is the status quo remaining? So right now, I think the decision is in two places. One is in the Kremlin in which they're saying, if the Americans don't change their behavior, we're either going to have to continue to accept it. And maybe the Americans will continue to ramp it up and give more weapons or lift more restrictions or whatever. It's going to get worse and worse and worse for us if the Americans don't change.

Or we force them to change and we destroy a Ukrainian brigade with, you know, three or four nuclear weapons. Right. And then maybe the Americans get the message. That's one option. The other option is the White House says, okay, we think the Russians are no longer screwing around. We think the Russians are actually serious this time. So what do we do? Do we reimpose restrictions on the attack comes and say, I'm sorry, guys, but you guys can't shoot these things into Russia anymore.

Keep them inside Ukraine. Or do we just, you know, like in Vegas, let it ride? Yeah. Those are the two places where those decisions are going to be made. Okay. I'm kind of wondering if at this point Putin's perspective is we're sort of just going to ride out the next two months and wait until Trump gets into office because things stand to change pretty drastically under Trump administration. Right. What do you expect to see change in the first two to six weeks that Trump is in office? It's really hard to say, you know, and I don't want to speculate. What I would say, though, is that even before you get to that point, you know, we are in a two-month period in which it's, frankly, like, who's making these decisions in the Oval Office?

Vice President Harris has been on vacation with her husband in Hawaii coming off the campaign. President Biden, I don't want to say he's non-Copus Mentis, but, like, there's a reason why he pulled himself out of the race. Yeah. So who is actually making these decisions in the White House? So Vladimir Putin may say, I've got a two-month window in which I can bully the Americans in because there's frankly no strong executive leadership in the Oval Office right now. Now, that may change on January 20th when President-elect Trump is sworn in, but he may think I've got an eight-week window.

So whatever I'm going to do, I've got to do it now. But this is my point. We're in so much uncertainty right now because of the nature of, the executive office of the president, Vladimir Putin, and this, frankly, this ticking clock we've got. So then what are you going to be watching in the next two months? What are you keeping an eye on? What should the American people be watching? So I would be looking really, really closely at what is coming out of the Kremlin from the Foreign Ministry's office and for any potential movement out of nuclear weapons storage sites. So we know where these are.

like these are like we just know. And so if we start to see increased activity at nuclear weapon storage sites or preparation at like some kind of, you know, island off the coast of Siberia in which they're actually setting up a warhead to detonate above ground, we'll be able to see that. Or, you know, we could just wake up one morning and, you know, the Russians decided light went off, you know, using an iron by an intermediate range ballistic missile, not armed with conventional warheads, but with four or five nuclear warheads. And if they did that towards Ukraine, what do you think this administration's response would be?

So that's a million dollar question, right? Yeah. Like you either say, sorry, sorry about that. We're going to pack up our stuff and go home. Or, you know, we test our own nuclear weapon, right? Or we enter the war as a co-bolegerent. I mean, those are kind of the three options. Yeah.

Would we see much of a response? Do you think from partners in Europe? Certain partners in Europe. We say Europe, but remember, you're 32 members of NATO. Some would be ready for blood. Like some neighbors like Poland would be like, we're in it to win it, let's go now is the time. Other members of NATO would say no way. Other members like Spain, Italy, and others would say there's no way we're going to go and fight Russia at this point.

Okay. And so you wouldn't be able to get to consensus because the way NATO makes all their decision making is every single country has to agree. So you've got to get to 32, 33 countries that are unanimous. Okay. which simply will not happen. Yeah. So you're going to have a fractured NATO. Well, my hope is that the next time we have you on, Bob.

It's for maybe slightly cheerier news, but I'm not sure, given your skill set and expertise. Hopefully it's not because Russia has just fired a nuclear weapon off it at Ukraine. Hopefully not. Here's hoping. Here's hoping. Well, thank you again for your time today. Really appreciate it for anyone listening in our audience. How can they follow your work and keep up with what you're doing?

Follow me on Twitter. Real Bob Peters. that's probably the best place. But, you know, check out the entire defense team at Heritage. We've got some great folks here doing great stuff. Excellent. You can find all that work at heritage.org. Well, thank you again for your time.

Greatly appreciate it. My pleasure. Thank you. And for all of our listeners, thank you so much for being with us today. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. We don't have any top news shows for the rest of this week, but we will be right back here with you on Saturday

for our weekend interview edition. And again, on Sunday for a weekend interview edition. Have a very happy Thanksgiving. And hey, if you like what you heard today, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. And if you would, take a minute to leave us a five-star rating and review. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. We'll see you back here Saturday. The Daily Signal podcast is made possible because of listeners like you.

Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Katrina Trinko. Hosts are Virginia Allen, Brian Gottstein, Tyler O'Neill, and Elizabeth Mitchell. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, John Pop, and Joseph von Spakovsky. To learn more or support our work, please visit DailySignal.com.