From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Jake Smith

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons against the West, marking yet another escalation in an already drawn-out war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and shown no signs of ending.

Putin announced during a meeting with the Russian Security Council on Wednesday that the country’s nuclear doctrine was being expanded to include the possible use of such weapons against other nations with nuclear capabilities, should they support a non-nuclear state — such as Ukraine — in a heavy missile attack against Russia. The warning comes amid President Joe Biden’s announcement on Thursday of an additional $8 billion in military aid to Ukraine and reports that Western nations are considering allowing Kyiv to use their long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russian territory.

Ben Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Putin is likely “bluffing,” but it is not worth the risk for the U.S. to allow Ukraine to make such a move.

“I think the odds of Russia using a nuclear weapon in response to one of these hypothetical strikes are pretty low. But how much do you want to gamble on that? How much do you want to bet that Putin is bluffing? I’d say not very much,” Friedman told the DCNF. “You want to be very cautious. The U.S. has no security interest in taking those sorts of risks in a conflict that could escalate to a larger war, even a nuclear exchange in a worst-case scenario.”

Putin said during the security meeting that the nuclear doctrine was being updated because of an “emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for Russia and our allies,” according to multiple reports.

“The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear-weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear-weapon state, should be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” Putin told the council on Wednesday, noting that the conditions to launch nuclear weapons would be based on “reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack means and their crossing of our state border,” according to the Post.

“We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus,” Putin said.

Officials from the White House and State Department told the DCNF they were “not surprised” By Putin’s warning.

“Russia has been signaling its intent to update its nuclear doctrine for several weeks,” a State Department spokesperson told the DCNF. “However, Putin’s public comments highlight Russia’s attempts to use irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and employ coercive nuclear signaling as it has done against Ukraine for more than two years.”

Moscow’s threat of using nuclear weapons has been frequently raised as the U.S. and Europe continue to throw their support behind Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, which began in 2022 and has shown no signs of stopping. Putin has issued such warnings specifically over the West’s indirect involvement in the war, which has largely come in the form of military aid to Ukraine.

The U.S. alone has allocated over $55 billion worth of military assistance to Ukraine since 2022, while European partners have committed roughly $46 billion in the same time frame.

But certain rules and regulations have been imposed on the military aid to Ukraine, particularly around how weapons can be used to strike Russia. For much of the war, Western nations restricted Ukraine from using the weapons to strike inside Russia, although that ban was recently lifted to allow Ukrainian forces to launch attacks against Russia’s border region.

Ukraine wants the West to make further allowances on weapons use, however. Kyiv argues that it should be allowed to use U.S. and European-provided long-range missiles to hit targets deep inside of Russian territory, a move which the U.S. has been wary of due to escalatory risks with Moscow.

But now a number of nations are signaling that they will allow Ukraine to use long-range systems to strike Russia, including Britain and France, though they want the U.S. to give the green light first — and some European partners have become frustrated with the delay for approval.

“It would be really good to stop the delays. And I think that the restrictions on the use of weapons should be lifted,” Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Bloomberg on Monday.

Though the U.S. and West have bolstered Ukraine’s military efforts over the last two years through extensive funding measures, it has done little to change the course of the conflict. Ukraine is suffering from a worsening manpower shortage as its troops are killed in combat along the Eastern line of the war, and has been forced to retreat from regions along that front as Russian forces advance.

Russia has made small territorial gains along the Eastern front, but it has come at the cost of hundreds of thousands of soldiers’ lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in spending. Some Russian forces are currently staging a counterattack against Ukrainian forces that broke through Russia’s border in August and staged an incursion in Kursk, according to Reuters.

Over one million Russians and Ukrainians have thus far been killed or injured since the war began in 2022, according to a confidential Ukrainian estimate reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The Biden administration, with only months left in power, is starting to run out of options to help Ukraine and may turn to allowing Kyiv to use long-range weapons as a possible measure, so long as they are provided by Europe and not the U.S. President Joe Biden and his team have faced criticisms for seemingly failing to work an endgame strategy in the war or outline the road to a peace deal.

“Biden could certainly change direction,” Friedman told the DCNF, by potentially either supporting an even stronger Ukrainian defense operation or putting pressure on Kyiv and Moscow to negotiate a peace deal. “But I don’t think he will, just because of the way this White House seems very set in their approach.”

Kid Rock blasts case of bud light

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jeff Berkowitz

It was a warning shot that went unheeded, and now it is costing major corporations dearly. Following a last year’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in higher education, 13 Republican state attorneys general fired off a letter to Fortune 100 companies questioning their similar corporate policies. Now, many companies wish they had paid closer attention.

In the past few months, conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s social media campaign has swept through major corporations wreaking so much havoc that companies have begun folding to his demands before they are even targeted. The result? Damaged market capitalizations, tarnished reputations, and ire and frustration from consumers and activists on both the Left and Right. Welcome to the latest manifestation of our post-Bud Light era in which every company remains a Target.

Starbucks’ campaign and the attorneys general’s scrutiny that preceded it are part of the growing right-wing backlash to corporate America’s post-George Floyd embrace of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. It is just one area in which companies are finding it hard to avoid political pressures in today’s stakeholder economy. Here’s what public affairs professionals need to know to help their companies navigate the increasingly heated culture wars of our tribal era.

The Summer DEI Turned Ugly

Leading this charge is conservative activist Robby Starbuck, whose campaigns against corporate DEI efforts have forced several major companies to quietly retreat. He led a full-blown digital assault against Harley-Davidson, leveraging his social media reach to accuse the company of straying from its core, blue-collar values. Harley-Davidson caved, dialing back its diversity programs. Next in line was John Deere, the agricultural giant known for embodying rural America. Starbuck’s campaign amassed millions of views, and the company retreated on its DEI initiatives. Seeing the wreckage, Molson Coors, Ford, and Lowe’s preemptively reduced their diversity efforts to avoid Starbuck’s crosshairs.

These aren’t isolated incidents. What started as a weak signal—the occasional conservative critique—has now turned into a full-fledged backlash. Tractor Supply, for instance, initially embraced DEI as part of a broader modernization strategy, but scaled back its efforts after being targeted by one of Starbuck’s campaigns. The retreat wasn’t driven by internal concerns over DEI’s effectiveness but by external pressures. Starbuck’s use of social media, dripping out just enough content over time to keep the pressure rising, has been a devastatingly effective strategy leaving companies from every sector fearing that staying the DEI course could cost them dearly.

Companies’ Complicated Embrace of DEI

Companies first leaned into DEI as a response to a profound cultural shift. The killing of George Floyd galvanized a movement for racial justice, and businesses, driven by both moral imperatives and strategic necessity, integrated DEI into their operations. Companies like Harley-Davidson, Nike, and John Deere were among the most visible in championing these efforts, aligning their brands with social progress and gaining public praise in the process.

What many of these organizations failed to foresee was the emergence of a powerful counter-narrative. On the surface, DEI seemed apolitical — focused on long-overdue fairness, inclusion, and representation. However, to conservative critics like Robby Starbuck, these initiatives represented a broader ideological shift that encroached on corporate neutrality. Companies that embraced DEI became vulnerable to accusations of wading too far into progressive politics, opening themselves to opposing pressure campaigns that can significantly damage their reputations and business models.

As we’ve pointed out before, DEI efforts are too often shaped and driven by a broader progressive agenda that itself is not always that inclusive. Plus, for many companies, the embrace of DEI has been more rhetoric than results, with little real progress towards stated goals of elevating under-represented populations in company ranks – particularly at higher levels. That’s left companies stuck between unsatisfied progressives and angry conservatives.

In Politics, Every Action Has An Unequal And Opposite Reaction

Starbuck’s playbook reveals a deeper truth about today’s political dynamics. DEI, which quickly became viewed as a corporate best practice, is now seen by many on the right as synonymous with “wokeness” — a label that carries significant risks in today’s polarized environment. What some companies initially saw as distant concerns have turned into high-pressure reputational crises and many prominent libertarian and conservative voices in the business world are now pushing companies to embrace an alternative: Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI).

This new reality brings significant legal implications, with lawsuits alleging reverse discrimination on the rise and politicians pushing legislative and enforcement actions. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis spearheaded efforts to dismantle DEI with the “Stop WOKE Act” in 2022, which restricted how race and gender topics are taught in schools and workplaces. In 2023, he expanded these efforts by defunding DEI programs in higher education, labeling them as political indoctrination. His actions set a precedent for other Republican governors, with states like Texas, North Dakota, and North Carolina advancing similar policies.

In many ways, DEI has become a proxy for larger ideological battles, and companies are increasingly caught in the crossfire. As Starbuck’s campaigns continue to gain traction, businesses that once felt pressure to do more on a range of social issues from the left are now feeling the same sort or pressure from the right — and not all of them understand how they got here or what it means as our cultural warfare continues.

Navigating The Tribal Divide

As the stories of Harley-Davidson, John Deere, and Tractor Supply illustrate, the decision to step back from DEI initiatives isn’t always about rejecting diversity itself but about managing the complex realities of political and reputational risk. Even firms like Nike, a well-known and ardent supporter of progressive social causes, has tempered its public messaging in recent months.

The DEI blowback we’re witnessing today is a reflection of deeper societal divisions, ones that are now playing out across corporate America. Public affairs professionals need to understand this battle isn’t just about DEI—it’s about the role activists and politicians on both sides of the divide expect businesses to play in shaping cultural narratives.

In this new era, companies must navigate an ever-shifting landscape where political and cultural allegiances can determine success or failure. For those in government relations and public affairs, staying attuned to these tribal dynamics will be critical in helping organizations anticipate and manage the next wave of blowback—or hopefully avoid it all together.

Jeff Berkowitz is the founder and CEO of Delve, a competitive intelligence and risk advisory firm.