Today, Russia's president
claimed that he had no plans to
use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Despite previous threats to do
so and warnings about the
possible detonation of a
radiological device in Ukraine.
The comments came as the U.S.
Department of defense released a
set of major strategy documents
that describe China as the U.S.
Most comprehensive challenger.
But Russia as an acute threat.
>> The leader with the world's
largest nuclear arsenal warned
of a turning point.
>> We stand at a historical
frontier.
Ahead is probably the most
dangerous, unpredictable, and
important decade since the end
of World War II.
>> President Vladimir Putin
spoke as Russia launched its
annual exercises.
He accused Ukraine of planning a
dirty bomb attack on its own
territory but insisted Russia
poses no nuclear threat.
>> We don't need a nuclear
strike on Ukraine.
There is no point either
military or political.
>> We are certainly concerned
about escalation.
>> Lloyd Austin said any attack
on Ukraine that is nuclear would
trigger consequences.
>> We have been clear from the
beginning that you would see a
very significant response from
the international community.
>> The national defense strategy
and the nuclear posture review
and the missile-defense review.
The strategy calls Russia and
acute threat but China the most
comprehensive and serious
challenge to U.S. National
security.
They reiterate support for the
multitrillion dollar
modernization of the U.S.
Nuclear triad, the ability to
strike from the air or land with
intercontinental ballistic
missiles and by C.
But it canceled a nuclear armed
C launch cruise missile and
rejects a promise made by
candidate Biden.
>> We should be pushing.
>> For years he believed that
the U.S. Should pledge not to
use nuclear weapons first.
But a nuclear posture review
says it would've created an
unacceptable level of risk.
The review egg knowledge is
Russia's battlefield nuclear
weapons and warns Russia could
use these forces to try to win a
war on its periphery or avoid
defeat if it was in danger of
losing a conventional war.
And joining me now is the
department of defense top policy
official under secretary of
defense for policy.
Welcome back to the newshour.
To these Russian nuclear threats
change how the U.S. Thanks of
its nuclear policy and its
defense not only of the U.S.,
but other partners?
>> I think a lot of the veiled
and not so veiled threats is a
reminder for many adversaries
that the salience of nuclear
weapons is going up, not going
down.
The nuclear posture review which
we released today as part of a
series of reviews over the
national defense strategy makes
clear that nuclear weapons
remain an essential aspect of
U.S. National security and play
a unique role in determining the
types of threats we are hearing
about.
>> The review says the U.S.
Would only consider in extreme
circumstances to defend the
vital interest of the U.S.,
allies, and partners.
Does that mean the U.S. Would
consider nuclear weapons if
deterrence fails and Putin does
launch a nuclear device of some
sort?
>> I'm not going to go into
hypotheticals of if this then
that that I will say as a
practical matter we have stood
by Ukraine and provided than
more than $18 billion in
security assistance.
We will continue to do that.
>> As we noted before he became
president, Mr. Biden said he
believed in no first use.
That policy says it would
produce unacceptable risk.
Why were you unable to convince
allies?
>> The president still aspires
for us to move to a place where
conditions are set that the
purpose is solely to determine
nuclear attack as opposed to a
narrow range of other strategic
attacks.
We are just not in that world
yet.
The president agrees with that
assessment.
But I think it can fall under
the U.S. Nuclear umbrella, worry
about a whole host of strategic
threats.
And they see the U.S. Nuclear
commitment as fundamental to the
commitment we made.
They were also nervous about a
move at this juncture at a time
when the salience of nuclear
weapons appears to be going up.
They were particularly concerned
about a move to soul purpose.
We consulted our allies and we
landed where we landed.
>> Your ending the nuclear C
launch cruise missile program
started by the trump
administration.
Secretary austen said there was
enough capability but wouldn't
that have been another weapon
that U.S. Allies wanted for
reassurance and provide the
capacity to deter?
>> The folks that emphasized the
C launch cruise missile really
emphasized the need for a low
yield nuclear weapon so that you
could have various response
options up the escalatory
letter.
It was the judgment that we
already have sufficient low
yield capabilities.
Keep in mind that the C launch
cruise missile would not deliver
capability until 2035 and cost
tens of billions of dollars.
We just believe the bang is not
worth the buck.
>> Russia is in the middle of
military exercises.
Last time they had exercises,
they were cover for the invasion
of Ukraine.
There is no sign that these
exercises are cover but do you
have the confidence that you
actually know?
>> There is nothing our
intelligence community spends
more time looking at than the
prospect that an adversary might
use nuclear weapons against the
United States or our allies and
partners.
We watch this like a hawk.
We believe that any effort to
mask nuclear use inside a
nuclear exercise is something we
would pick up.
We don't have any indications
the Russians are planning that.
We don't expect them to do that.
It would be a grave mistake.
>> President zelenskyy is clear
that he's not in the mood for
any kind of talks with Vladimir
Putin.
The foreign minister says the
best discussion table is the
battlefield.
90% of Ukrainians are calling
for the re-seizure of crimea as
well as the re-seizure of all
the territory lost this year.
Is the U.S. Preparing for this
war to extend past the one year
mark?
And what are the implications of
that?
>> In all likelihood, this
conflict will go on in one form
or another.
I think part of Vladimir Putin's
theory of victory is that he can
wait us all out.
But one of the things we have
made clear is that he will not
be able to wait us out.
>> Do you believe the U.S. Can
maintain the political support
we have had in the past and have
enough military on the shelf for
the long run?
It seems like it will go on for
a long time.
>> I think there is considerable
bipartisan support for Ukraine
and you periodically hear
comments in one direction or the
other but frankly I think there
is considerable support and I
think the American people
support the effort.
Despite high energy costs and a
cold winter, we will keep the
alliance unified.
I think we can and will continue
to support Ukraine.