How Trump Saved Christmas
In the early morning hours of Wednesday, December 11, Joe Biden tried to start a nuclear war with Russia.
And on Thursday, December 12, Donald Trump did his best to stop it.
If he succeeds, Donald Trump will have saved Christmas.
Take that, Grinch.
This isn’t a laughing matter, and yet, in writing this, I am overcome by a sense of giddiness that only comes when you’ve pulled off something that nobody thought possible.
Back on November 19, in response to news that the Biden administration had given the greenlight to Ukraine to use US ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed off on a new, revised Russian nuclear war doctrine which gave him that option to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack against Russia by a non-nuclear state that was backed by a nuclear power. According to Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov, the use of US-supplied ATACMS missiles by Ukraine to hit Russian territory could potentially be a trigger for a Russian nuclear response under the revised document.
Later that same day, Ukraine, using intelligence information provided by the US to guide the missiles to their targets, fired several ATACMS missiles against targets in Russia.
Russia retaliated with a new intermediate-range missile—the Oreshnik—which, while capable of carrying nuclear warheads, was outfitted with a new, novel conventional warhead.
The use of the Oreshnik represented the first time in the history of warfare that a strategic missile was used in combat, a major escalatory move by Russia reflecting the seriousness with which they took the ATACMS attack.
On November 26, the Ukrainians struck again, using ATACMS missiles to strike a Russian air defense position in the Kursk region.
The next day, on November 27, Russian General Valery V. Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, called General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to inform him that Russia was prepared to use the Oreshnik missile to retaliate against any further ATACMS attacks, and that the Russian targets could include locations outside of Ukraine.
The phone call was part of a concerted effort by the Russians to impart on the leadership of the US the seriousness to which Russia attached to the use of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine against targets inside Russia.
The next day, November 28, Russia launched a retaliatory strike against Ukraine’s energy grid, crippling large segments of an already diminished infrastructure. But the Russian attack was made using conventional weaponry that Russia had used in the past, not the Oreshnik.
Russia was playing its part to try to deescalate a situation it found to be extremely dangerous.
But the Russian concerns were falling on deaf ears.
General Brown knew what very few outside the innermost circle of American leadership knew—that the CIA, contrary to reports published in the New York Times and Washington Post, did not believe the Russians were bluffing when it came to its threats to retaliate with nuclear weapons should the Ukrainians continue their use of ATACMS missiles.
The CIA had briefed select members of Congress and the White House that it assessed the Russians were serious about their willingness to employ nuclear weapons if the attacks continued.
And General Brown knew that the position taken by the White House was that they were prepared for this.
That they were ready for a nuclear “exchange” with Russia over the issue of Ukraine.
Indeed, on November 20, at a presentation before the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan, the Director of Plans for Strategic Command, responsible for executing America’s nuclear war plans, told an audience just that—that the Biden administration was ready to engage in a nuclear conflict with Russia, one that it expected to win.
On December 5, accompanied by the irrepressible Medea Benjamin from Code Pink, her able Washington, DC, Director, Adnaan Stumo, and other volunteers and activists, including Jose Vega and Morgan Blythe, I paid a visit to several congressional representatives and their senior staff to talk about the danger of nuclear war between the US and Russia, and possible ways that such a war could be avoided.
One of the points that I drove home was, in the face of continued use of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine against Russia, and void of any possibility of getting the Biden administration to rescind its permission regarding ATACMS use by Ukraine, it was imperative that President-elect Trump issue a statement which distanced himself from this policy, and provided Russia with assurances that a Trump administration would not continue to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS against Russia.
We were assured by several of the people we met with that they would do their best to get this message to senior members of the Trump transition team.
On December 6, Tucker Carlson, the former FOX television star-turned independent journalist who conducted an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin this past February which garnered over one billion views, was back in Moscow.
In a video posted from Moscow, Carlson declared:
We’ve watched from the United States as the Biden administration has driven the US ever closer to a nuclear conflict with Russia, the country that possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal. It has accelerated ever since, and it’s reached its apogee so far in the weeks after Trump’s election. He's now the president-elect.
In that time, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration, American military personnel launched missiles into mainland Russia and killed at least a dozen Russian soldiers. So we are, unbeknownst to most Americans, in a hot war with Russia, an undeclared war, a war you did not vote for and that most Americans don’t want, but it is ongoing. Because of that war, because of the fact that the U.S. military is killing Russians in Russia right now, we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in history, far closer than we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Tucker Carlson was in Moscow to do what the Biden administration wouldn’t—to speak with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about the threat of nuclear war between the US and Russia.
In the interview, Lavrov declared that Russia was “ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests,” adding that “We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character.” Lavrov reiterated that Russia was prepared “to do anything to defend our national interests,” adding that Russia would “send additional messages” (i.e., additional Oreshnik missiles) if the leadership in the US and Europe “don’t draw necessary conclusions.”
On December 7, I hosted a series of panels at the National Press Club on the danger of a nuclear war between the US and Russia triggered by the US greenlighting of ATACMS missile targeting of Russia by Ukraine. One of the panels focused specifically on the importance of getting President-elect Trump to weigh in on this issue to assure the Russian government that he did not support these attacks.
On December 11, despite every warning Russia had given regarding its concerns regarding the continued use by Ukraine of US-provided ATACMS missiles against targets inside Russia, Ukraine fired six ATACMS missiles against a Russian airbase outside the Russian city of Taganrog. Russian authorities immediately signaled that they were preparing to respond with several Oreshnik missiles.
On December 12, Time Magazine published an interview with President-elect Trump, whom they had selected as their “Person of the Year.” It was a wide-ranging interview which touched on many topics and issues, including the decision by the Biden administration to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS against Russia.
“It’s crazy what’s taking place,” Trump said, referring to the ATACMS attacks. “It’s crazy. I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done. Now they’re doing not only missiles, but they’re doing other types of weapons. And I think that’s a very big mistake, very big mistake.
“I think the most dangerous thing right now is what's happening, where Zelensky has decided, with the approval of, I assume, the President, to start shooting missiles into Russia. I think that’s a major escalation. I think it's a foolish decision. But I would imagine people are waiting until I get in before anything happens. I would imagine. I think that would be very smart to do that.”
The interview was conducted on November 25, after the initial ATACMS attacks and Russian Oreshnik retaliation, but before Tucker Carlson’s interview of Lavrov, or my congressional intervention and National Press Club event. Simply put, there are no causal inferences that can be drawn between Trump’s statements and anything that came after. But what is critical is that the efforts of Tucker and myself to get the Russians to be open to the possibility of a new mindset in a future Trump administration helped create an environment where the Russians were ready to receive any declaratory statement by the President-elect which could provide insight into the actions of a future Trump administration when it came to the continued use of ATACMS missiles by the US once Trump took office.
The Time Magazine interview provided just that.
On the night of December 12, Russia launched a massive retaliation against Ukraine for the ATACMS attack on Tagonrog.
Like the strike that took place on November 28, the Russian action was undertaken only using conventional weapons that had already been a part of past Russian retaliatory actions.
Russia did not make use of the Oreshnik missile.
While Russia has not provided any statement which links its decision not to use the Oreshnik missile to Trump’s Time Magazine interview, one can always hold out that such a linkage did occur.
In any event, the Russians are now apprised of the position of President-elect Trump regarding the use of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine—Trump is “vehemently opposed” to such action, which he has characterized as “foolish.”
This a major declaration, one which could—even should—prevent the kind of nuclear escalation the Biden administration seems hellbent on engaging in with Russia.
But Trump’s statement cannot be allowed to stand on its own.
It needs to be reiterated by both Trump and his team, so that there is no uncertainty in the minds of the Russian leadership what awaits them if they withhold from undertaking escalatory retaliatory strikes against Ukraine and possibly NATO in response to what will inevitably be additional ATACMS attacks by Ukraine on Russian territory.
The governments of the United Kingdom and France have just authorized Ukraine to use the Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles against Russian targets.
To forestall a Russian retaliation against UK and French targets outside of Ukraine, Russia needs to know whether Trump’s attitude toward ATACMS extends to Storm Shadow, SCALP, or any other foreign-made long-range weapon (the German-made Taurus missile comes to mind).
We all may get to celebrate Christmas this year because of an interview Trump gave to Time Magazine.
But we cannot rest on our laurels.
Keep up the pressure.
Call your members of Congress.
Ask them to support HR 10218, which prohibits the use by Ukraine of ATACMS missiles against Russia.
HR 10218 may not become law, but with enough signatures, it cannot be ignored.
By rallying support around the issue of ATACMS used by Ukraine against Russia, we can raise the profile of this issue and empower those who might otherwise be hesitant to embrace this policy course out of fear of political backlash to add their voices.
And right now, the most important voices that need to be heard are those of President-elect Trump and his national security team.
Saying “no” to ATACMS doesn’t weaken any future American negotiation position regarding the end of the conflict in Ukraine.
It does ensure that such negotiations can, in fact, take place.
Yes, Virgina, there is a Santa Clause.
And he looks like Donald Trump.