Putin’s Nuclear Threats Aim to Sway American Voters, Experts Say
Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again issued nuclear threats against the West, but experts believe that this time, his intentions may be different. After three years of similar threats, experts remain skeptical of Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling. One expert suggests that Putin is using these threats to instill fear among American voters and reduce US support for Ukraine.
In his annual state-of-the-nation speech, Putin referred to French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments about the possibility of NATO troops being sent to Ukraine. Putin warned Western nations that Russia possesses weapons capable of hitting targets on their territory. He emphasized the potential for conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization.
However, most experts do not believe that the chance of nuclear warfare is high. Simon Miles, an assistant professor at Duke University, states that Putin’s nuclear threats have become predictable. Miles explains that Putin is trying to portray himself as a strong leader protecting Russia from catastrophe with the West, especially ahead of the upcoming presidential election in Russia.
But there may be another reason behind Putin’s nuclear threats. Matthew Schmidt, an associate professor of national security and political science, suggests that Putin is targeting Western publics and civilian political leadership, particularly in the United States. Schmidt believes that Putin aims to discourage American support for Ukraine by swaying American voters against politicians and policies that would result in further US funding for Ukraine.
The Biden administration has already directed significant aid to Ukraine, amounting to nearly $75 billion, including military and financial support. However, further funding has been stalled in Congress, with waning support from House GOP members. Congress recently averted a government shutdown but made no progress on passing a $95 billion package with emergency funds for Ukraine and other foreign allies.
Schmidt argues that Putin’s goal is to create conditions that would hinder US support for Ukraine. While military professionals and international relations experts may be skeptical of Putin’s threats, the average American voter may not fully understand the complexities of nuclear politics. Schmidt suggests that when civilians hear about Putin’s nuclear threats in response to American involvement in Ukraine, they may oppose ongoing assistance through their votes.
This information warfare from Putin comes at a critical time for Ukraine, as Russia has achieved military victories in recent weeks. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has appealed to Western allies for artillery and air defenses, emphasizing the importance of continued support. However, Schmidt believes that Putin’s message may resonate more with American voters, as it is easier for him to threaten nuclear war than for others to explain the significance of Ukraine to US interests.
In conclusion, Putin’s recent nuclear threats should be viewed with skepticism. While they may aim to sway American voters and reduce support for Ukraine, experts believe that the chances of nuclear warfare are low. The upcoming presidential election in Russia and the complexities of US involvement in Ukraine further complicate the situation. It remains to be seen how these threats will impact public opinion and political decisions in the United States.