French socialist tyrant Emmanuel Macron is spending the weekend in Prague, attending a European Union summit along with other NATO leaders. During one press gaggle, Macron was asked about Joe Biden’s recent comments where he invoked the image of “Armageddon” if Vladimir Putin deploys any tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Macron took the bait and decided to criticize Biden, saying he needed to display prudence and “choose his words carefully.” Oddly, Macron also made a reference to not engaging in “political fiction” when it comes to Mad Vlad and his stockpile of nuclear warheads. (NY Post)

French President Emmanuel Macron chided President Biden for invoking the possibility of nuclear “armageddon” and said his US counterpart should choose his words carefully.

“We must speak with prudence when commenting on such matters,” Macron told reporters at a European Union summit in Prague on Friday.

“I have always refused to engage in political fiction, and especially … when speaking of nuclear weapons,” he added. “On this issue, we must be very careful.”

Since I rarely get the opportunity to do so, I’m going to take Biden’s side on this one. The President wasn’t threatening anyone with potential nuclear attacks. He was warning the world that Putin is “not joking” when he brings up the possibility of using nuclear weapons or other WMDs if he doesn’t get his way in Ukraine. That no longer falls into the category of “political fiction” at this point.

Personally, I would put the odds of Russia unleashing a nuke or two at less than 50% at this point, but not a lot less. Putin’s forces have faced one embarrassing setback after another recently and those events haven’t slowed him down a bit in terms of trying to look like he’s still going on the offensive. Following the successful attack on the Kerch Bridge this weekend, did Putin respond by blowing up Ukrainian military assets? No, he did not. He blew up several apartment buildings in Zaporizhzhia, killing at least 17 civilians and injuring scores of others.

These are not the actions of someone who is looking to paint a reasonable face on their military maneuvers. Putin has obviously abandoned any pretense of hoping to build more international support for his campaign in Ukraine. If he doesn’t feel any remorse over blowing up civilian targets, I doubt he will lose any sleep over lighting off a nuke. Of course, as investigative reporter Tim McMillan pointed out this morning, this is probably “the stupidest conceivable military strategy.”

(2) Aside from the obvious moral issues, Russia’s continued attacks on civilian non-military targets is perhaps the stupidest conceivable military strategy.

They only serve to bolster Western support, Ukrainian resolve to fight, and do nothing to stop Ukraine’s

— Tim McMillan (@LtTimMcMillan) October 9, 2022

I would have to agree that this strategy qualifies as “stupid” in terms of gaining the support of any nations not already in Russia’s corner. It might even scare off a couple of fence-sitters who have tried to avoid taking sides in this entire mess, particularly in Africa and the southern Pacific. But would a nuke or two be completely futile in terms of Russia’s long-term goals in Ukraine? (Whatever those goals may be this week.)

I’m not quite as sure about that as I might have been over the summer. Zelensky clearly believes he’s on a roll at the moment, having taken back some significant territory in the eastern part of his country and at least temporarily shut down a major Russian supply line to the south. Every conventional attack on civilians gives him more rhetorical ammunition to keep the west united against Russia. But if any of his population centers suddenly turn radioactive under a mushroom cloud, the death toll might be too much for him to swallow and he could consider going back to the negotiating table.

Why would I say that? Because we should consider what Joe Biden and the rest of the NATO leaders might do in response to a single tactical nuclear air burst over a Ukrainian city. Are any of us going to lob one of our own nukes at a Russian target? Would we strike any targets inside of Russia even with conventional weapons? Recent history strongly suggests that the answer is no. There would just be more sanctions proposed against Russia and more economic warfare.

Let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that. But at least for the time being, talk of “Armageddon” doesn’t need to be entirely off the table. In fact, people should be aware of the realities we may wind up dealing with. Maybe we should pick up a few doses of that radiation medicine that the White House just ordered.

[EDIT: An errant reference to Canada instead of France was removed.]