Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2142145531-scaled

NYT buries news on 'urgent' meetings about nuke response options in Ukraine

As Russian forces dig in and the US sends more arms to Kyiv, we need a public debate about the no longer ‘unthinkable’ nuclear option.

Analysis | Media

The New York Times “buried the lede,” as they say, in Wednesday’s major story by reporters David E. Sanger and William J. Broad about the “dangers of a new, riskier nuclear era” in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Urkaine.

The article recounted how “established restraints” are “giving way to more naked threats to reach for such weapons — and a need for new strategies to keep the atomic peace.”

The news peg, of course, is that the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin, whether it’s out of pique or desperation, is literally no longer “unthinkable.”

What the authors waited over 1,000 words to tell us, however, is that the White House is scrambling to figure out how to respond:

A sign of the risks of this new age has been a series of urgent meetings in the administration to map out how Mr. Biden should respond if Russia conducts a nuclear detonation in Ukraine or around the Black Sea.

The casual mention of these life-or-death war-gaming sessions, deep inside the story, is a perfect reflection of the mainstream media’s lack of alarm – and lack of interest – in the threat of a nuclear conflict. This is true even as the Biden administration sends ever-deadlier and more advanced weapons into the region.

How should we respond if Putin uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine? Do we escalate or de-escalate? How much should we worry about it?

These are questions that we should be hotly debating in Congress and in the media, not ignoring or burying.

Biden touched on the nuclear question in a New York Times op-ed published on Tuesday, but in vague terms, writing:

I know many people around the world are concerned about the use of nuclear weapons. We currently see no indication that Russia has intent to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, though Russia’s occasional rhetoric to rattle the nuclear saber is itself dangerous and extremely irresponsible. Let me be clear: Any use of nuclear weapons in this conflict on any scale would be completely unacceptable to us as well as the rest of the world and would entail severe consequences.

What are those “severe consequences”? That was left to our imagination.

Officials wouldn’t tell Sanger and Broad what they concluded from the “urgent meetings." But they wrote:

As Mr. Biden’s opinion article hinted, his advisers are quietly looking almost entirely at nonnuclear responses — most likely a combination of sanctions, diplomatic efforts and, if a military response is needed, conventional strikes — to any such demonstration of nuclear detonation.

The officials further tried to play down the prospect of an apocalyptic nuclear exchange by telling Sanger and Broad the idea was to “signal immediate de-escalation.” As the reporters noted, that is “a sharp contrast to the kind of threats of nuclear escalation that Washington and Moscow pursued during the Cold War.”

But that Biden’s advisers are looking “almost entirely” at nonnuclear responses suggests that they haven’t entirely ruled out a nuclear one.

Shouldn’t they?

“There should be a public discussion about the consequences and the options,” said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association. And some options should be ruled out.

If Putin uses a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, he says, “responding with nuclear weapons makes absolutely no sense. It would only lead to escalation — and it would show that the U.S. is willing to kill a lot of people, too.”

And Kimball said the White House shouldn’t be doing this alone, or in secrecy. “How our government responds — and they will have to respond quickly — will potentially affect the lives, and potentially lead to the deaths, of millions of people.”

Meanwhile, Biden announced on Tuesday that he is sending Ukraine advanced rocket systems and munitions that a Kremlin spokesman warned are “adding fuel to the fire.”

In the Times’s main article on Biden’s decision to send the rockets to Ukraine, Michael D. Shear acknowledged that “top administration officials have been concerned about provoking a broader war,” specifically by “providing equipment that could allow Ukraine to strike deep inside his country.”

As Shear put it:

That has proved to be a tricky line to walk for the president and his advisers since Mr. Putin sent his troops into Ukraine nearly 100 days ago.

In a “background press call” by two anonymous “senior administration officials” on Tuesday night, one reporter asked the obvious question: “I mean, I’m no expert, but if you took the thing to the border with Russia and fired it towards Russia, wouldn’t it go 48 miles into Russia?”

The answer was basically: We trust them and you should trust us. The direct quote: “The Ukrainians have given us assurances that they will not use these systems against targets in Russian territory.  And so, based on those assurances, we’re very comfortable that they will not.”

As Shearer pointed out, “Biden’s administration has already sent Ukraine about $5 billion worth of antitank and antiaircraft missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters and other military equipment.”

But the new weapons are in a different class: the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, is “capable of firing satellite-guided rockets” that carry “roughly the same explosive power as a 500-pound bomb dropped from the air.”

According to Pentagon budget requests, the rockets cost about $150,000 each. They are made by Lockheed.

Biden opted not to send Ukraine a longer-range rocket, which could travel as far as 186 miles. CNN reporters Jim Sciutto, Natasha Bertrand and Alex Marquardt, who first broke the story about Biden’s decision to send the rockets, wrote that the longer range was “a major hang-up” because “some worried” it “could allow the Ukrainians to take the fight into Russia.”

So when it comes to provoking Putin, Biden draws the line somewhere between 48 miles and 186 miles. But why? We don’t know. And we don’t know if it makes sense.

What if it’s these rockets — the most advanced weapons sent to date — that turns the war in Ukraine into a nuclear, or even global conflagration? Will it have been worth it? How will we feel about the fact that there was essentially no public debate before it happened?

What history has taught us, over and over again, is that you often don’t see major inflection points in real time, only in retrospect. That’s why reporters have to ask hard questions — even unpopular questions — when so much is at stake.


Image: Frame Stock Footage via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Media
Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also seen on a television monitor, addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York October 1, 2013. (Reuters/Adrees Latif)

Israel is the main source of instability in the Middle East

Middle East

Is conflict in the Middle East at an inflection point? It might seem so, given how international outrage over Israel’s lethal conduct in the Gaza Strip has become increasingly intense and widespread in recent weeks.

Several major Western countries that previously had declined to join most other members of the United Nations in formally recognizing a Palestinian state used the opening of the current session of the General Assembly as the occasion to take that step. Popular demonstrations in the West in support of the Palestinians have been as large and conspicuous as ever, and recent polls show a sharp decline in the American public’s support for Israel.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, on Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Photo via Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/ABACAPRESS.COM via REUTERS

Trump's latest line on Ukraine isn't a 'shift,' it's a hand-off

Europe

U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetorical shift on Ukraine isn’t a call to arms. But it’s a dangerous attempt to outsource escalation to Europe. And it’s a strategy that could easily reverse again.

Trump’s recent social media pronouncement on Ukraine, following his meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be a stunning about-face. Just days ago, the core of his “peace plans” was the grim realpolitik of forcing Kyiv to accept territorial losses. Now, he declares Russia a “paper tiger” and seems to endorse fighting to Ukraine’s “final victory”, including “winning back” all the territories it lost to Russia since 2014.

But a closer look reveals this isn’t a genuine shift toward a hawkish policy. Instead, it’s the unveiling of a profoundly dangerous strategy. To understand it, we must see it as the outcome of a successful influence campaign by Kyiv, its European partners and their allies within the U.S. administration, who, after Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, faced a clear set of objectives.

Their minimum task was to prevent Trump from applying intense pressure on Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms for a peace settlement, most notably Russia’s territorial gains in Donbas and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality (i.e. no NATO membership). More ambitiously, they sought to convince Trump to return to a Biden-era policy of direct aid. And their maximum, albeit distant, task was to gain approval for high-risk actions like a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Faced with these pressures, Trump had three broad options: pressure Zelensky (facing major resistance from Ukraine, Europe and powerful forces within the U.S.), pressure Putin (with limited leverage and high escalation risks), or essentially “wash his hands” of direct responsibility.

The latest events show that Kyiv and Europe have achieved their minimum goal. Trump is not pressuring Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms. Moreover, he has effectively taken the issue of a rapid ceasefire off the table, a major win for leaders who fear a negotiated compromise. They now have a “green light” from the American president himself to continue fighting.

However, this shift is almost entirely rhetorical. While the tone has swung from advocating a deal to cheering for victory, the underlying substantive policy — American disengagement — has remained remarkably consistent. Before, he argued that Ukraine should cede land because the U.S. should not be involved. Now, he argues Ukraine can win back its land because the U.S. should not be involved, except as a merchant. The core “America First” principle of avoiding costly entanglements is unchanged; only the public justification for it has flipped to accommodate political pressures.

This disengagement is articulated not just by Trump’s transactional arms-sales approach, but by his key officials. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently laid bare the doctrine’s stark logic, dismissing fears of Russian expansion by stating, “All I hear from you is that Putin wants to march into Warsaw. The one thing I'm sure of is that Putin isn't marching into Boston.”

This statement is a clear signal that the administration’s fundamental priority is insulating the American homeland, not defending the NATO frontier, much less a non-NATO country like Ukraine. This “re-orientation” was likely influenced by a combination of factors, including Trump’s genuine frustration with Putin’s refusal to accept a ceasefire without a broader political settlement, incidents with Russian drones and aircraft violating NATO’s airspace, and a concerted flow of information suggesting Ukrainian strength and Russian weakness.

Yet, this apparent victory for Ukraine and its allies comes with a massive catch. Trump has not chosen deeper U.S. involvement. Instead, he has chosen his third option: to “wash his hands.” While his rhetoric is bellicose, his policy is transactional. The U.S., he suggests, will be a weapons wholesaler to Europe, not a direct funder. For Kyiv, this is far from ideal, as it must now rely primarily on European aid, which may be insufficient.

Critically, we must remember Trump’s penchant for abrupt reversals. Not long ago, he claimed Zelensky had “no cards” and that Ukraine would lose to Russia, a more powerful nation. Then he threatened Putin with sanctions, only to later drop those ultimatums, meet with him, and hailed a breakthrough. Now, Russia is a “paper tiger.”

keep readingShow less
US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence
Top photo credit: Tyre city, Southern Lebanon, 8-23-2017: Lebanese army soldiers performing the military salute ceremony (Shutterstock/crop media)

US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence

Middle East

Recent remarks about the necessity of disarming Hezbollah by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack have stunned Lebanese leaders, who are concerned that any forcible attempt to carry out Washington’s wishes risks plunging the country into renewed sectarian violence and possibly even civil war.

“We don’t want to arm [the Lebanese Armed Forces] so they can fight Israel? I don’t think so,” Barrack, who also serves as Special Envoy to Syria, said in a recent media interview. “So you’re arming them so they can fight their own people, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Iran is our enemy.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.