A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN
Putin, Ukraine, and Nuclear War—and Trump By David Corn March 12, 2022 
Ukrainian emergency employees work at a maternity hospital damaged by shelling in Mariupol on March 9, 2022. Evgeniy Maloletka/AP There’s nothing like a brutal, war-mad autocrat threatening nuclear war to put you on edge. As Vladimir Putin was launching his illegal and murderous invasion of Ukraine, he boasted of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and declared that any country that got in his way would "face consequences greater than any you have faced in history.” A few days later, this mobster announced he was placing his nuclear forces on “special combat readiness,” an increased state of alert. President Joe Biden wisely responded by not responding in kind. He did not step up the alert status of US forces, and UN ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted Russia was not threatened and there was no reason for “another escalatory and unnecessary step that threatens us all.” Keeping it cool.
Were Putin’s moves merely bluster? US military and intelligence experts have noted their concern that Putin’s war in Ukraine could go nuclear. At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, CIA Director William Burns said the Russian military thinking includes the possible use of smaller tactical nuclear weapons: “Russian doctrine holds that you escalate to de-escalate, and so I think the risk [of the use of nuclear weapons] would rise, according to the doctrine.”
Defense One this week quoted a former senior White House official familiar with Russian nuclear security issues, who said this risk is increasing because Putin doesn’t view nuclear weapons in the same way as the United States, or even the former Soviet Union: “The [United States] has newer weapons to deter conventional conflict…Russia has nuclear weapons as part of a warfighting battle plan.” The danger is rising, this source said, “precisely because the conflict in Ukraine is going badly.”
No one wants to be alarmist about nuclear weapons. But if there is anything to be alarmist about, that’s a good subject. And no one knows what Putin is thinking these days. Is he rattling the nuclear saber to keep the United States and the West from more direct intervention in the war? After all, one of the best arguments against NATO declaring and enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine is that this could lead to a direct military confrontation between two nuclear powers and who the hell knows where that might lead. Yet might an irrational Putin resort to a nuclear blast out of desperation, anger, or madness? Or might he consider the battlefield use of a tactical nuclear weapon a legitimate and effective military measure? The best Putin-watchers cannot fully suss out what his strategy or endgame is in Ukraine, so trying to comprehend his nuclear calculations is just another geostrategic parlor game with, unfortunately, no good guidance or rules.
With the specter of nuclear conflagration on our minds these days, this is an appropriate moment to recall that during the four years Donald Trump inhabited the White House, he did nothing to lessen the threat of nuclear warfare. He’s not responsible for Putin’s nuclear recklessness, but he was the first US president of the nuclear age who did not take steps toward moving the world from the nuclear precipice. In fact, he greased the skids.
Nuclear policy can seem arcane, and it’s rarely covered in the media. I asked noted arms control expert Joe Cirincione (a subscriber of this newsletter) to provide a for-dummies summation of Trump’s moves on this front, and he kindly obliged:
Instead of reducing nuclear risks, Trump increased them. He engaged in nuclear taunts and braggadocio, similar to Putin’s now. He further blurred the line between conventional, cyber, and nuclear weapons by dramatically increasing the types of conflicts in which we would use nuclear weapons to include cyberattack and conventional attacks. He then ordered up new “more useable” weapons with lower yields and battlefield targets, like new sea- and air-launched cruise missiles and low-yield warheads on strategic submarines. He failed to have any meaningful talks in freezing or reducing nuclear weapons with either Russia or China. Instead of steadily reducing the role and numbers of nuclear weapons in US and Russian arsenals, he expanded their roles and increased the types of nuclear weapons. In so doing, he encouraged and justified Russia’s moves to do the same.
Overall, Trump advanced the notion of the usability of nuclear weapons. His dangerous thinking on this was revealed even before he became president. In August 2016, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reported, “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them.” And in 2017, NBC revealed that Trump, during a meeting with national security advisers, expressed his desire for a tenfold increase in nuclear weapons—a remark that prompted then–Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to later refer to Trump as a “moron.”
In a prescient paper Cirincione wrote at the beginning of February for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, he outlined the awful record of the Trump years:
Nuclear hawks...rode Donald Trump’s presidency to unfettered command of nuclear policy. This destroyed the relative caution of Obama’s NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] with an expansion of nuclear programs and missions and accelerated contracts without any serious negotiations with other nuclear-armed states.
As a result, nuclear-weapons reductions ground to a halt. The last treaty reducing U.S. and Russian weapons was signed in 2010 and will expire within four years, with no new reduction talks in sight. Policies of regime change failed catastrophically, unable to end any “rogue state” programs. All nine nuclear-armed states are now building new weapons.
In effect, the nuclear hysteria of the 1950s and 1960s has returned today in modified form. The United States and Russia still field huge arsenals while developing new nuclear weapons and junking many of the treaty guardrails that helped reduce weapons and contain risks. This adds even greater risks in light of the crisis over Ukraine that is unfolding as this brief is published...Current trends in nuclear-weapons deployments echo dangerous Cold War thinking, emphasizing more “usable” weapons integrated with conventional war plans. These policy failures keep nuclear weapons as one of the three great crises that threaten destruction on a planetary scale.
A few days ago, I interviewed former ambassador John Bolton, who was Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019. The primary subject at hand was Trump and Ukraine. (You can watch that interview here.) The main news was that Bolton said that when Trump was president he cared more about a “spaghetti bowl of conspiracy theories” than Ukraine—until he realized in 2019 that he could withhold security assistance for Ukraine and press President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to orchestrate dirt on Joe Biden and cook up disinformation to counter the widely accepted conclusion of the US government that Putin had attacked the 2016 election to help Trump win. But Bolton also mentioned that prior to Trump’s 2018 summit with Putin in Helsinki, he and the National Security Council staff tried to brief Trump on nuclear arms control issues that Putin might raise. Trump, though, showed no interest in being briefed on this. Then when Bolton attempted to brief him on Air Force One during the flight to Finland, Trump sat there watching a World Cup game. This is the man the Republican Party still supports.
Trump is not to blame for Putin’s irresponsible and despicable actions. But in his own lane, he did nothing to make nuclear war less likely. Cirincione sums up a complicated subject rather simply and eloquently: “With nuclear weapons, if you are not decreasing the risks, you are increasing the chances that they will be used.” Boosting nuclear danger is something Trump and Putin have in common.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. 
Dumbass Comment of the Week This woman was cheered at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, where she said Canada needs “to be liberated”: 
Certainly, one of the most disturbing remarks of recent days came from former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s promoting his new book and endeavoring to rehab the reputation he soiled by serving as Trump’s legal bag man. He was loyal to Trump—protecting him from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report—until almost the end, when Trump pressed Barr to declare the 2020 election results fraudulent. Barr bolted at that point, trying to avoid becoming as discredited as Rudy Giuliani. Discussing his late exit from Trumpland, he said on Fox, “The other thing that was actually unsettling is later when I went in to actually give [Trump] my letter of resignation, he started talking about how he had actually won the election and how the machines were rigged and that he was actually going to be there for another term. And he was very confident of that. I just felt this showed a detachment from reality.” Yet on the Today Show, when asked if he would vote for Trump if Trump is the 2024 GOP nominee, Barr essentially said yes: “Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee.” So when we might be close to World War III, Barr would place a person detached from reality in charge of a nuclear arsenal. Now that’s owning the libs for sure!
Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, also showed that the supposed grown-ups around Trump were not that grown-up. On Meet the Press, she informed us, “I was mortified that Biden went so far as asking China for help with Russia. You never ask an enemy for help with another enemy. I never told China anything that I didn't want Russia to know." Is she serious? When Russia is waging an illegal and horrific war on Ukraine and civilians are dying, the president of the United States should not lean on China’s President Xi Jinping to lean on Putin to stop? This automatic anti-Bidenism is stunning. Haley went on to say, “You never negotiate. You never deal with your enemies. You can’t trust them.” This person was a top diplomat? States negotiate with enemies all the time. Under her rule, there would be no nuclear arms treaties. There would have been no negotiated settlement of the Troubles in Ireland or the Balkans War. No peace accord between Egypt and Israel. Chuck Todd spotted the insanity of her position and asked, “You wouldn’t work with [China] diplomatically at all if you were in charge right now?” Haley sidestepped the query, perhaps now realizing how idiotic her red-meat remark was. 
Neither Haley nor Barr could claim the prize this week. Previous winner Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) did it again. At a town hall meeting—first noted by Karl Rove(!) in the Wall Street Journal—Cawthorn remarked, "Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug. Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies." Zelenskyy and Ukraine, a hotbed of wokeness? Where does he get this stuff? We know that the far right has celebrated Putin for being anti-woke. As the thug-leader of Russia was preparing to invade Ukraine two weeks ago, Steve Bannon and Erik Prince, on the former’s podcast, giddily hailed Putin for being non-woke and a foe of LGTBQ rights. Cawthorn’s dumbass comment goes beyond that stupidity to tar Zelenskyy with the worst calumny the right these days can affix to a perceived foe—at a moment when Zelenskyy is likely being hunted by Russian killers and bravely leading a democracy under violent assault. Madison Cawthorn bests the other dumbasses and earns this legendary question: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” The Mailbag In the last issue, I examined the conflicting impulses progressives might feel regarding the Ukraine conflict: We must help the Ukrainians being slaughtered and brutalized by Putin, and we should not expand a war that could lead to nuclear confrontation. The dilemma of what to do has not eased in subsequent days, as Putin has destroyed cities and Ukrainian leaders and citizens call on the United States and NATO to impose a military no-fly zone above their land that could bring NATO forces into shooting matches with Russian warplanes. I wasn’t surprised to see that many readers had intense feelings about all this.
Lenore Guidoni wrote in to point out various hypocrisies she spots:
We killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Libya and destabilized the entire Middle East. Even as we left Afghanistan, we murdered a whole family because we thought the Dad was carrying a bomb—and that was only one story of civilian deaths by drone, just one that made it on YouTube. We invaded Iraq on a lie not a reason. I don't remember seeing 24/7 coverage of any of it, I don't remember us treating these deaths like the people were part of our families, I don't remember any intimacy in the way we talked to individuals about how upset they were to leave their parents out of fear of invasion. Of course, those weren't white Europeans. They were people of color from other cultures. I absolutely don't condone what Putin is doing. On the other hand, what would we be doing if a Communist party in Mexico won an election and invited Russians to put missiles on our border?
Robert Ross cited fundamental and historic problems with the US military as reasons to be reluctant about involving it in a war. He noted American soldiers should be asked to possibly sacrifice their lives...
only if we could rely on the US military to have a strategy that employs the latest technology, not merely to try to conceal American sacrifices, but to end the conflict quickly and decisively. The American military drags out wars and when doing so, ensures failure. The pattern is set. We should all ask if this is because the heads of the military enjoy war. They see it merely as a chance to build their historical legacy, even if only in their own minds. My brother-in-law was at Tora Bora. He was the aid to the general in charge. The story he told me has still not been reported. They lost Osama bin Laden only because there was a tug-of-war over who would get credit for capturing him. Juvenile infighting, nothing more. He died of a grade five brain tumor less than a year after deployment. We believe he died because the 110th Mountain division was camped on an abandoned Russian uranium mine. Again, not reported here. And so, the war went on.
Ann P. White emailed:
Your column is a good summary of how many of us are reacting to daily reports of the bombing of civilians in Ukraine. If we apply a moral calculus to this horrific, disturbing destruction of innocent human life, another consideration needs to be considered: the damage we cause to our own sense of the value of human life. If one becomes a monster to annihilate a monster, you have two monsters instead of one. If the method of annihilation uses the same cluster bombs in urban areas, nuclear attacks, etc. to stop the enemy who uses these methods, we have become equal in our loss of regard for human life. And I'm no pacifist. As a society we bear the consequences of our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam in the contorted soldiers who return from these conflicts unable to adapt to civilian life, their lives a constant struggle with PTSD, self-hatred of their own altered/diminished personalities, fear of their own responses to uncontrollable memories, etc. War ruins people. Not everybody, but too many. We can become our own enemy by dehumanizing the other.
Cathy Belmonte asked how she can help:
The Ukrainian government has called for people around the world to help it purchase military equipment and other supplies, and it provided a bank account to which donations can be sent. But I heard on NPR that it’s difficult to transfer contributions to this account. Some American banks are not doing it. I’m no expert on how to make such a donation. Consequently, it might be best to support one of the many Western NGOs and public interest groups that are helping refugees, journalists, and democracy activists. Vox published a handy guide for these various efforts.
Other readers responded to a recent piece in which I contended that Attorney General Merrick Garland ought to sidestep Justice Department procedures and inform the public about whether Trump is being investigated by the feds for his actions related to January 6 and his attempts to overturn the election results.
Jeff Dorman emailed:
You know that DOJ is investigating Trump, et al. And I would not be surprised if there is a cache of incriminating nuggets from special counsel Robert Mueller’s work that is laid in the foundation. We aren’t really that needy that we need Garland to come out and say so, are we? You beating this dead horse is a bit unbecoming. But I love everything else you bring to light! Keep up the good work and I will keep sharing your good word.
Thanks, Jeff. I don’t think of it as being “needy,” just reassuring the public that if a president tries to steal an election, he will be investigated by the Justice Department. So far, we don’t have a clear indication that such a probe is underway.
Bill Wendland smelled a rat:
Adding a note to your fine article, Comey made such a decision regarding public right to know, divulging Hillary's email investigation at a very critical time and likely cost her the election. So now Garland is going to err in the opposite direction protecting Trump’s right to privacy just to prove the agency has recovered its moral standing? The whole thing reeks. And the problem, I’m sure, with indicting Trump is that he is so aberrant, there is no way to prove his intent.
Dan Stone emailed:
David, don't you think it's better for DOJ to stick to policy? (Not that an exception would make much difference ... "Thank you Comey") If they've convened a grand jury we'd find out through leaks from lawyers of antagonistic witnesses. Likely they're letting 1/6 committee do the initial legwork. The committee has until the end of this year; DOJ has at least another year beyond that. Keep in mind that it's very challenging to determine criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt for 1/6 insurrection since trump will claim he relied on "expert legal advice" from Eastman, Giuliani, Mitchell, etc.
Nicholas Sinisi pointed to a recent article citing Republicans threatening political warfare if the Justice Department does investigate Trump, and he wrote:
My question is: How can an investigation of a blatantly political act—trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election—NOT be inherently “political?” It seems that this argument by the GOP would allow them to pretty much get away with whatever they wanted without any repercussions.
That is a very good question. The GOP has become quite adept at brazenness: Support or excuse an attempted political coup and then denounce any investigation of it as political and threaten such a probe will trigger political civil war. It has learned that having no shame can be a political advantage.
Asha Nathan wrote:
Great interview with Mary Trump. Helped me better understand a lot of the back story. Deeply grateful for all your work over several decades.
Decades? That does make me feel old. But thanks, Asha. That podcast—in which I discuss the backstory of Putin’s war on democracy and liberalism, and Trump’s relationship with him—is available here.
Jo Moncrief found an error in the last issue. I mistakenly called Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds “Kim Rogers” when pointing out that she said something truly dumb about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I regret the mistake. MoxieCam™ “Moxie, why are you shaking?” “I don’t want to go inside.” “It’s just the vet. They’ll be nice to you.” “Yeah...and you said life would be less crazy with Trump not in the White House.” 
Read Recent Issues of Our Land March 8, 2022: The progressive dilemma in Ukraine; rehabbing West Side Story; does Inventing Anna target or celebrate Instagram culture?; and more.
March 5, 2022: Once again, Merrick Garland should tell us if the DOJ is investigating Trump for his attempted coup; Dumbass Comment of the Week (winner: Ben Shapiro); masks and freedoms, the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
March 1, 2022: From CPAC to Ukraine—how the right went from wrong to crazy; rebranding this newsletter; and more.
February 26, 2022: How we let Ukraine—and the world—down; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Special Useful Idiots Edition); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
February 23, 2022: Yoko Ono (finally?) gets the credit she deserves; a Trump-Russia fantasy; The Slow Hustle takes on the hard case of a Baltimore cop-killing; and more.
February 19, 2022: A masterclass in both-sidesism from Washington Post columnist Matt Bai; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
February 15, 2022: Why is John Fogerty serenading Trump crony Steve Wynn?; can Trump be barred from running for president because he flushed documents down the toilet?; The Woman in the House Across the Street From the Girl in the Window doesn’t know if she’s in a parody or not; Elvis Costello tells us to listen to Ian Prowse; and more.
February 12, 2022: Would you want to look at photos of a massacre?; rebranding This Land; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
February 8, 2022: The Trump coup: Maybe we can’t handle the truth; Steve Martin and Martin Short shine in Only Murders in the Building; Invasion’s odd but conventional take on the sci-fi/alien-attack genre; and more.
February 5, 2022: Can we call Trump’s race war a “race war”?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann and Rick Scott); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
February 1, 2022: Please tell me: Why is Michael Flynn crazy?; an impressive film about Nicolas Cage and his pig; Wajahat Ali’s impressive memoir about growing up Muslim and nonwhite in America; and more. Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.
|
