Public and Private Conversations With Putin – Are They Persuasive?

Is what the United States says to Russia in private the same as what it says in public? Responding to Russian President Vladimir Putin's threats that he would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the Biden administration's national security team has been making the mainstream media rounds. Biden's staff has publicly explained that the US reaction would be "horrific," but is that the tenor of private conversations the State Department is having with the Kremlin?

Putin got the world's attention on Sept. 21 when he called up 300,000 reserve forces to bolster Russia's failing Ukraine invasion. And he explicitly declared he was prepared to use nuclear weapons. As Liberty Nation reported in its coverage of the Kremlin's menacing rhetoric, Putin said Russia would "use all means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people." To punctuate his threat, the Russian chief executive warned, "This is not a bluff."

Biden National Security Team’s Strong Words for Russian President

Speaking for the administration on NBC's Meet the Press, Jake Sullivan, Biden's national security advisor, explained: "So, the Russian army is in trouble and the Ukrainian army is making gains on the battlefield and stopping the Russians from making progress." Furthermore, Sullivan said the administration has been careful regarding the timing and content of conversations with the Kremlin.

Because the State Department does not want to jeopardize how it communicates with Moscow's leadership, Sullivan said, "In private channels, we have spelled out in greater detail exactly what that would mean." The Biden team wants the Russians to understand "in no uncertain terms" that the consequences would be "catastrophic" if Moscow "went down the dark road of nuclear weapons use."

"It's very important that Moscow hear from us and know from us that the consequences would be horrific, and we've made that very clear," Secretary of State Antony Blinken echoed on CBS' 60 Minutes.

Putin Sponsors Sham Referendum: Pretext for Nukes?

Of primary concern regarding Putin's use of nuclear weapons is a "phony pretext." The Russian leader wants to claim he's protecting Mother Russia, so he is sponsoring elections in areas of Ukraine held by Moscow's invasion forces. According to many observers, however, the votes will be nothing more than a "sham." The G-7, a group of the world's most industrialized and powerful economies, has called out the Russian leader for this charade with a strong statement of support for Ukraine:

"These referenda in areas that have been forcibly put under Russia's temporary control in no way represent a legitimate expression of the will of the Ukrainian people, who have consistently resisted Russian efforts to change borders by force. We will never recognize these referenda which appear to be a step toward Russian annexation, and we will never recognize a purported annexation if it occurs."

Additionally, the G-7 condemnation of Russia expressly referred to "the partial mobilization of reservists and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric." The statement also warned the Kremlin of significantly harsher sanctions on the Russian economy if Putin violates international law under the "false cover" of a made-up referendum and "illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory."

If the Biden administration is telling Putin in private what it is saying in public, should Russia make the mistake of using nuclear weapons, the United States and its allies would respond in kind. But so far it seems the White House has not demonstrated in action the intensity of language it uses in public. Skepticism is warranted, since more aggressive action by Biden's team a year ago to proactively arm Ukraine might have averted the current crisis. Nevertheless, Sullivan and Blinken are saying the right things now. The question is, does Putin believe them?

The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliation.