the war in Ukraine is supported
in partnership with the pulitzer
center.
Over the past few months, the
Biden administration's rhetoric
about its ultimate goals for
Ukraine appears to have shifted.
Officials are talking more about
winning the war against Russia.
At the same time the white house
has increased military support
for Ukraine raising concerns it
could provoke Russia to use
weapons of mass destruction.
For a closer look at the
questions raised by this, we get
two views.
The executive director of the
McCain institute at Arizona
state university.
During the Obama administration,
she served as deputy assistant
secretary of defense for
eurasia.
And a political science
professor at the university of
Chicago.
He has written extensively about
U.S. National security.
His latest book is the great
delusion.
Liberal dreams and international
realities.
We welcome you both back to the
newshour.
John, I'm going to start with
you.
Do you believe U.S. Goals for
Ukraine have changed and if so,
how?
>> I think initially, the Biden
administration thought the best
we could do in Ukraine was to
stymie the Russian offensive by
assisting the Ukrainians.
But when it became clear the
Ukrainians were doing very well
on the battlefield against the
Russians, we escalated and
eventually greatly escalated our
goals.
And we are now and on inflicting
a decisive defeat on Russian
forces in Ukraine.
Beating them decisively on the
battlefield.
And in addition, wrecking the
Russian economy with sanctions.
All of this is designed to
greatly weaken Russian power.
Secretary of defense Austin has
made this very clear.
One could argue what he and his
colleagues in the Biden
administration are due --
registered in doing is knocking
Russia out of the great power
ranks.
Judy: Evelyn, do you see the
same thing going on?
>> Some of the the not exactly.
So the underlying objective and
this runs from the Obama
administration through the trump
administration despite what
president trump said himself,
his cabinet kept the same policy
vis-a-vis Ukraine and all the
way to today.
Our objective has been to
protect Ukraine's right to its
sovereignty, the borders as they
exist and their right to
associate with nato or the
European union.
That is steady going but I would
agree that there has been a
change in the Biden
administration.
They have recognized the only
way to stop Vladimir Putin is
not through sanctions, not
through trying to appeal to the
Russian people.
Actually by defeating Ukraine --
defeating pressure on the
battlefield.
-- Defeating Russia on the
battlefield should Judy:
Continuing that point, I hear
John saying what it looks like
the U.S. Is now saying is they
want to not just degrade the
Russian military but almost wipe
it out and do the same thing to
the Russian economy.
>> Here is where I disagree.
I don't think this
administration cares whether
Russia maintains its economic
power in principle.
Whether it maintains its
military power in principle.
This aggressive foreign policy
being conducted by Vladimir
Putin since 2008 when they
invaded Georgia, the first
neighbor they invaded and
occupied is not going to stop
while Vladimir Putin is in the
Kremlin, while he has the money
to support this foreign policy.
The administration has decided
that now they must weaken Russia
as much as possible to put an
end to this current foreign
policy adopted by the Kremlin.
It is not something they wish
permanently.
That is not a policy decision I
see coming out of the white
house.
Judy: But I hear you describing
is something you think you
believe is dangerous.
That it could get the U.S. Into
a situation where the Russians
are retaliating in ways the U.S.
Is not prepared to deal with.
>> I think this policy the Biden
administration is following is a
dangerous and foolish.
We know that the one
circumstance in which a great
power is likely to use nuclear
weapons is when it is -- when it
survival is threatened.
When it thinks a decisive defeat
is being inflicted on it.
What the is bent on doing is
inflicting a decisive defeat on
Russia.
We are threatening at survival.
We are presenting the Russians
with an existential threat.
This is the one circumstance
where they might use nuclear
weapons.
I think we should be going to
Norma's lengths to make sure we
do not put them into a position
where they countenance using
nuclear weapons.
Judy: Evelyn, is that the risk
here that the U.S. Confronts by
changing the goal?
>> Russia's nuclear policy does
allow for the use of nuclear
weapons first against an
adversary if it feels that the
existence of the state is in
question.
I think that leaves a lot of
room for subjective
interpretation and of course
that will be Vladimir Putin's
interpretation.
What we cannot forget is we are
also a nuclear power.
We have deterrents in place.
Vladimir Putin does not want a
nuclear war with the united
States or nato.
He does not want a conventional
war with us either because he
can barely win the one he is
waging in Ukraine.
I don't think we should be
deterred by this fear he is
going to reach for nuclear
weapons.
I am not dismissing it.
The objective we have right now,
the stakes are so high.
It is not just about Ukraine.
It is about the international
order.
We are fighting to stop Vladimir
Putin from turning after Ukraine
to Georgia and Moldova,
destroying nato, reasserting a
sphere of influence system which
is what we put to bed after the
end of World War II when we set
up the united nations and the
rules-based order.
Judy: I hear you saying you fear
Russia cannot be deterred.
There may be a decision made by
Vladimir Putin to use weapons of
mass destruction including
nuclear weapons and that the
U.S. Is moving inexorably toward
that direction?
>> I think it is very important
to understand if you were to use
nuclear weapons, he would use
them in all likelihood in
western Ukraine.
There are no nato or American
forces in western Ukraine.
He would not be attacking us.
He would be using those weapons
in Ukraine.
The question is what do we do
then?
I'm not sure what we would do.
Would we use nuclear weapons?
Would we get dragged into the
war?
When the professor talks about
the consequences of this for the
world order, I'm more worried
about the consequences if we end
up getting hit with nuclear
weapons.
We want to remember what
president Kennedy did during the
Cuban missile crisis.
He was in a similar situation.
What he did was try to dampen
the conflict.
He tried to work out some sort
of deal with khrushchev so we
could both avoid getting
vaporized.
What the Biden administration is
doing is the opposite.
It is putting pollutant in a
position where he might very
well use nuclear weapons.
I think this is remarkably
foolish.
Judy: Evelyn, what do you see
happening if Vladimir Putin were
to resort to tactical nuclear
weapons?
What do you see the U.S.
Response --
>> I think he is most likely to
use them if he feels it will be
no consequences for him.
If he thinks we will not counter
with a nuclear use, I know it is
a horrible thing to contemplate
but that is how deterrence
works.
Or if he thinks we will not
enter the war directly.
And actually I think I am not
sure whether our government
would actually use nuclear force
and a response that we have to
say that because that is part of
deterrents.
If there is nuclear use for the
first time since World War II
and Vladimir Putin may well do
that if he thinks we won't
respond, I think president Biden
will enter the war directly.
That is not mean troops on the
ground but it means Russia will
lose.
I think Vladimir Putin is likely
smart enough to understand the
danger for himself.
He is not going to reach for a
nuclear weapon right now.
He is already proceeding a
little more cautiously from what
we could see.
It remains to be seen how this
all ends.
He is not interested in taking
on the United States and nato
pit >> These are enormous
questions and we are going to be
coming back to them.
It is so important to begin to
explore this tonight as we have
with both of you.
We thank you.