>> mediacom supports c-span as a public svice, along with these other providers. ging you a front row seat to democracy. >> listening to program on c-span or c-span radio just got easier. tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio, and listen daily at 7 a.m. eastern and throughout the day. and weekdays at 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 eastern. p.m. listen to c-span any time, just tell your smart speaker, play c-span radio. c-span, powered by cable.

military aims, undermined u.s. interests, and set off a committed terran catastrophe unseen since 1945. to deter such a disaster, the united states should issue public, vague threat of serious consequences for any russian use nuclear weapons and be prepared

to follow through with conditional military strikes on russian forces if deterrence fails. tell me how you came to the conclusion, that the u.s. should take this threat seriously, should make it clear they are willing to respond forcefully to any threats. guest: that was a good summary. i came to the conclusion in two parts. first, we should take this threat seriously. this is part of russian strategy and doctrine, the idea that they would use nuclear weapons, maybe even early in the conflict to avoid losing a conventional war to a rival. this is in their doctrine, something they have practiced. they have built 2000 weapons for this purpose. we should take this seriously. so what should we do about it? why has he not use nuclear

weapons already? he has been making these threats since february but has not done it yet. the reason is he is deterred and worried about the possibility of u.s. or nato intervention, so the memo recommends let's keep doing that. continue to play on those fears and encourage the white house to make these threats that there will be catastrophic consequences for russia. i hope that is enough to deter him, but it is possible that deterrence would fail and he would use nuclear weapons anyway . and then washington has the problem of how should it respond? doing nothing would be weak. putin could use a second or third or fourth nuclear weapon. spotting with nuclear weapons runs the risk nuclear escalation, so i recommend this option of a conventional strike directly to show putin there was a real cost and try to limit the

risk of uncontrolled nuclear escalation. host: as you know, the cuban missile crisis started 60 years ago today. if we go back to president biden's remarks saying there is the threat of armageddon, i want to ask you, what do you think of that comparison of the cuban missile crisis today? do you think it is a fair comparison? guest: yes. i have thought about the cuban missile crisis. my 2018 book on u.s. nuclear strategy has a chapter on the cuban missile crisis, so there are similarities and differences. the two main differences are the risk that nuclear weapons could be used by russia is greater now than it was during the cuban mess crisis. people forget this, but it was the united states that went on nuclear high alert and that was

enough to convince the soviets to remove the missiles. the soviet union was not really making explicit nuclear threats. now russia is d there is a risk that they will use nuclear weapons. i do not know what percent output on it. the other difference is i do not think this is the risk of armageddon. the cuban missile crisis could have led to a direct u.s.-russian nuclear exchange. it is still hard for me to see how that happens in ukraine today. what we are really talking about is putin using battlefield nuclear weapons in ukraine. if the united states responded to my recommendations, that would be a targeted, conventional strike against russian forces. things could always escalate, but it is hard for me to see how we get to a direct strategic nuclear exchange today.

that is what was on the table during the cuban missile crisis. host: still comparing the lessons learned from the cuban missile crisis, are there any you would suggest when it comes to de-escalation that we could apply today? guest: the lesson we sometimes forget is that we are afraid of nuclear war but so is vladimir putin and the people around him. in the cuban missile crisis, the united states essentially achieved its goals and avoided war by a show of strength, showing we would defend our interests and going on nuclear high alert in making these threats, ultimately forcing moscow to back down. we need to remember those lessons today as well. there are some who say this is dangerous and we should back down and get out of ukraine. the downside of that is you

incentivize putin's nuclear blackmail. you teach him and other dictators if you make nuclear threats and use nuclear weapons you can take your neighbors and do whatever you want. that is not the kind of world we want to live in, so the lesson today is the united states should stand firm and clearly communicate to putin the consequences of continuing to attack ukraine, of using nuclear weapons. with any luck, we can achieve our objective and prevent nuclear weapons from being used at the same time. host: we are talking today about the 60th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. we are also during this hour applying it to the current russian invasion of ukraine and the nuclear threat there. i want to remind you our phone lines are open. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, call us at

(202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zone, call us at (202) 748-8001. if you lived through the cuban missile crisis, if you remember that time, call us at (202) 748-8002. we want your questions for mr. kroenig. we want your thoughts and comments and we will get to them in a moment. i want to get back to you. you mentioned the threat of nuclear -- use of nuclear weapons today is not necessarily the missiles that could wipe out countries. you think it would be more targeted on the battlefields in ukraine. but what do you think is the calculus that putin is making when he determines whether to use nuclear weapons and how?

guest: we do not need to speculate much because they have built the weapons for it. essentially, the first step of the strategy is to make the nuclear threats. we have seen that since february. we are seeing that in recent weeks, so the hope is that the threats enough would be enough to get the adversary to back down. in this situation, the ukrainians, the west, the white house would say, do we really want to risk a nuclear war over this? let's just sue for peace on terms favorable. if that does not work, the next step of the doctrine is essentially for a demonstration strike, so may be in nuclear test, maybe a nuclear weapon over an uninhabited part of

maybe on a single military target, again with the same goal. this is getting real now. do you really want to fight a nuclear war? he might be right. as a final step, if he is losing a conventional war with a neighbor, the idea is to use these tactical nuclear weapons to win the war to use them against the enemy'conventional forces. you do not build it 2000 nuclear weapons fors you can -- against the enemy's conventional forces. you do not build to have -- 2000 nuclear weapons for a small demonstration. he puts nuclear weapons on

mines, on torpedoes to go after ships, on depth charges to go after submarines. essentially any weapons system you can imagine, the russians have a nuke on it. host: you mentioned if boudin perceives -- putin perceives himself as losing, he can deploy nuclear weapons. there have been battlefield losses. there is a morale issue in russia. do you think he has a redline? if so, what do you think that redline is? guest: putin himself is probably torn right now. he sees the attraction of using

nuclear weapons for all of the reasons i have laid out. he worries about the consequences. you are right that the ukrainian counteroffensive has put putin on the defensive. he is losing territory. that is why we have seen the increased rise of nuclear threats. if the russian position in ukraine and ukrainian forces are pushing russian forces out of eastern ukraine, may be even out of crimea, couldn't is facing humiliating defeat -- putin is facing a humiliating defeat. will he be removed from office and killed in the streets of moscow? if he faces a humiliating

defeat, using nuclear weapons is more attractive than losing decisively. host: let's go to the phone lines now. we are talking about the cuban missile crisis and the threat of nuclear warfare today. we have the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8002. -- mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. if you remember the incident, (202) 748-8002. our first caller remembers the incident. do you have a question for matthew kroenig?

caller: we were driving to michigan. i said to my dad, " get out of here, this is a big target!" with the cuban missile crisis, i did not worry about it. we had to pull missiles out of turkey. didn't we have missiles in turkey, and that is why cuba was being targeted? this whole thing with putin and ukraine, this war, i have never been so scared in my life of the crisis in the world today. remember the body counts -- every week, 100 dead, 200 dead. this is armageddon we are looking at. biden did not misspeak. this is almost out of his hands now.

every nato country has their special forces. cia has their special fighting forces in their. it is not only brave ukrainians fighting putin's invasion. putin is getting his but kicked. we will push him so far. god forbid we -- once those things launch, the world is over. it is only a matter of time before you are burned up. i think biden is doing the right thing. guest: thanks, ron, for calling in. the jupiter missiles were a key part of the cuban missile crisis and part of the way that the u.s. got them to back down was nuclear threats. a key piece of that back channel diplomacy was kennedy offering to remove the u.s. missiles in

turkey if khrushchev removed the russian missiles in cuba. on biden's control over the crisis, i have a slightly different interpretation. i think biden has been trying to manage the escalation. right now the big debate is should we be providing attack muscles with a longer range that would allow the ukrainians to strike further into russia? biden has decided that would be too risky. the biden administration is trying carefully to manage the risks while supporting the ukrainians. host: up next is vince in idaho falls, idaho. thank caller: caller: you for taking my call -- caller: thank you for taking my call.

the thing that impresses me the most is all you moderators are top-notch people. i do not know how you handle all those callers! you are even cited. you are -- you are even sided. i am glad your guest is on. he is very good. he has started to clear up the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and what they can do. in terms of capacity, they can be just a flash. to put that in perspective, we had a kiloton at hiroshima and nagasaki. we had negative on weapons --

megaton weapons. they could be in the air, they could be torpedoed. my question is in light of what we know how good we are and the fact that we have not really entered the war to use our own forces, should we supply ukraine with our own nuclear weapons? thank you. host: matthew? guest: i joined the color in complementing the washington journal, you as a moderator --

caller in complementing the washington journal and you as a moderator. you are right. some of these russian nuclear weapons are sub-kiloton, which would be much smaller than the strike on hiroshima. some of these smaller nuclear weapons, if you use them against the white house, georgetown would be fine. it could have a devastating local impact, say, on the ukrainian military base, but without creating a lot of collateral damage. this is why it would be attractive to putin. in terms of whether the united states would provide some of its tactical nuclear weapons to ukraine, that is going too far. there is a nuclear nonproliferation treaty the u.s. helped to set up that tries to

restrict the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, so helping ukraine, giving ukraine nuclear weapons, would be a violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty so i do not think the u.s. will go there. it will continue to provide ukraine conventional weapons. if putin -- the u.s. would respond by giving the ukraine more conventional weapons.

♪