Expert warns escalating Ukraine conflict could reinforce the president-elect’s argument for direct dialogue and ending the war
Senior Foreign Correspondent
19 November 2024
Seldom has the fog of war lain so thick.
The week began with Joe Biden authorising the use of American Atacms missiles inside Russia. Or at least that was what the American papers reported, the White House neither confirmed nor denied the claim.
Initial reports said the permission was restricted to strikes in the Kursk region. But overnight on Tuesday, Ukraine hit a Russian ammunition dump further north in Bryansk.
Then, Vladimir Putin signed into law a revised nuclear doctrine that said America would be considered to have attacked Russia if it assisted Kyiv. But retained exceptionally high thresholds for nuclear use.
So, who is threatening to do what? Should we be frightened or reassured? And should we be ready for a nuclear war?
Militarily, the obvious and mundane response is to keep calm and carry on.
The Russian army long ago adapted to the threat of Atacms and Himars in occupied Ukraine.
Its troops should not find it too difficult to employ the same lessons about dispersal of logistics and troops in Kursk. They redeployed aircraft away from bases within range months ago.
Unless America has provided Ukraine with many more missiles than is publicly thought, permission to fire across the border is unlikely to stop the 50,000-man Russian and North Korean force massed to counter-attack the Ukrainian salient in Kursk.
Diplomatically, updating the nuclear doctrine has multiple benefits. It makes headlines, looks intimidating, and might (if he’s lucky) make the Americans think twice about the missiles.
It gives ammunition to domestic critics of Mr Biden accusing him of escalating the war, and potentially reinforces president-elect Donald Trump’s message that the war must be ended as soon as possible.
It is also relatively safe: Putin announced the changes in September, so it does not come as a surprise. It’s a document, not a bomb, so it effectively observes the unwritten rule of cautious and incremental tit-for-tats between the US and Russia.
Mr Biden observed the same rule when he waited for North Korea to enter the war before granting Ukraine strike permissions, and did Russia the courtesy of leaking the decision to The New York Times.
So Putin may be content to let things lie.
Tatyana Stanovya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Centre, warned that he may also find further escalation dangerously tempting.
It would expose Biden to further criticism and reinforce Mr Trump’s argument for direct dialogue with Putin, increasing the chances of a settlement of the war on Russia’s terms, she reasons.https://player.acast.com/6583012e715d5300169dcdcb/episodes/673b5f9c107f423a051bf765
Much has been made of the nuclear threat, but Russia has plenty of options for raising the stakes that do not involve making mushroom clouds.
It could supply weapons and more targeting data to Yemen’s Houthis to pressure Western shipping.
It could encourage other proxies to hit US and Western troops and assets elsewhere in the world.
It could step up their sabotage campaign in Europe, including against undersea communications cables.
Nuclear use can never be entirely ruled out, of course.
But even Putin’s decree uses careful language about actually firing a weapon.
Only if a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction is used against Russia, or it faces a conventional attack that poses a “critical” threat to its sovereignty or territorial integrity, would the deterrent be used.
That creates more room for bad faith interpretation than the previous wording about a threat to Russia’s continued existence. Still, it is hard to see how Atacms strikes – even in Bryansk – could meet that threshold.
The decree adds the mass launch of “aerospace attack assets” across the Russian border to its definition of such threats – alongside the traditional detection of ballistic missile attack.
Could the last be aimed at Ukrainian drone raids? Maybe. But again, it would be a dramatic leap to nuclear use.
The most significant line is in Article 4: “State policy in the sphere of nuclear deterrence is set by the president.”
In other words, Putin will decide if and when Russia uses its nuclear weapon, if and when he feels like it.
Is that reassuring or alarming? Who knows.
…………..
We’re going to use all of them, Zelensky says after Ukraine fires first Atacms
KEY MOMENTS
19 November 2024 •
Volodymy Zelensky has vowed to use all Ukraine’s long-range capabilities to strike inside Russia after Kyiv hit a weapons depot with a US-supplied Atacms missile.
“We’re going to use all of it,” the Ukrainian president pledged, describing how Ukraine produces its own missiles and drones and now has the freedom to use Atacms.
Ukrainian officials earlier confirmed that Atacms missiles were used in the overnight strike that hit a Russian artillery depot, where North Korean ammunition was also stored, in the Bryansk border region.
Moscow claimed its air defences intercepted five of the missiles and reported no damage.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister said the strike was a clear signal the West wants to escalate the conflict, claiming it would have been “impossible” to carry out without America’s help.
Just hours after the strike, Vladimir Putin signed a law allowing a nuclear strike in response to an attack with long-range missiles.
…….
Atacms allow us to ‘pummel’ Russia, says fighting Ukrainian MP
A Ukrainian politician serving in the army has praised the US decision to lift restrictions on Kyiv firing Atacms missiles into Russia, saying it will reduce Moscow’s ability to wage war.
“These instruments of war allow us to pummel their hubs, lessening the horror they are unleashing from the bases all around our borders,” Sviatoslav Yurash, an MP who serves in Ukraine’s 24th Separate Assault Battalion, told the Telegraph.
Mr Yurash added that Ukrainian troops responded positively to the news of the US decision.
“Troops aren’t complaining. The worst you’ll get is “too little, too late”,” he said.
Comment from :
Robert Morgan
“In other words, Putin will decide if and when Russia uses its nuclear weapon, if and when he feels like it.”
That was always the case.
The change to the doctrine is about posturing, or escalation without action.
He is trying to change the behaviour of Western powers without actually confronting them directly.
In the case of Germany, it clearly worked, but that is mostly to do with the February election.
In the U.K. and US elections are now behind us, so such posturing will have more limited effect.
Keith Butler
If he could end the war with Ukraine ceding none of the territory to Putin he would get a 👍 from me but I doubt it.
Stephen Butler
So Putin has released a document which was written in Sept that says he decides if and when Russia uses Nukes. Well who would have imagined that Vladimir would be the one who decides on such things. What a dangerous escalation.
Now as for sleepy Joe allowing ATCAMs to strike deep into Russia… why now? I can only imagine it is to attack the concentrated forces in Kursk. This territory is vital for the upcoming Trump Deal. Zelensky can trade Kursk for something Ukraine needs or vast chunks of their own land. Putin cannot culminate the war having lost territory to Ukraine. This battle is therefore vital for the peace talks. Putin will not end the conflict unless all Russian land is restored. Zelensky must hold Kursk area until the Spring, providing maximum negotiation.
Phil Dawes
The cutting of Baltic Sea internet cables was a warning. I think this will be Russias preferred method of revenge as it has plausible deniability.
Derek Wiley
It is said Russia has not yet achieved its objectives – but what are they?
Ukraine is simply repelling an aggressor.
Paul Brown
Reply to Derek Wiley
Russia’s original objective was to absorb Ukraine, which failed spectacularly. Now it’s just about Putin trying to save face and claim some kind of victory. He’s making it up as he goes along.
Jeremy Boughton
Russia is an economic and military pygmy run by a nasty little dictator.
Matthew Adkins
Everything really points to a frog being boiled and the frog is Putin.
XY XY
Why isn’t mentioned the other side?
Ukraine gave up it’s nuclear weapons, handed thrm over to Russia for a sheet of paper – seemingly worth nothing – on US behalf.
If they then are struck by ( perhaps one of their further own ) nuclear weapons by someone who with the greatest audacity of a bully doesn’t accept sovereignty but only might and power
then this is the most ultimate provocation possible.
And if the West doesn’t state that extremely clearly – and worse – not react accordingly then it’s his end.
A total disaster of trustworthiness and reliability and responsibility will crush it’s reputation throughout the world.
And perhaps that’s Putin’s real target.
Donna Jones
If the last 1000 days have taught the free world anything it is that you can’t believe a word that Russia says. Remember this one “Moscow, of course, has insisted all along it has no plans for a military escalation in Ukraine. The Russian authorities have dismissed claims by Western governments that a Russian invasion is imminent.”
JL WP
More belligerent sabre rattling from Putin backed up by his extravagant and arrogant sidekick Lavrov and their ghastly mouthpiece Peskov, who is continually in denial on their behalf.
I think Trump may also surprise people when he assumes power in terms of not doing what everyone thinks he’ll do and will keep supplying Ukraine with weapons.
He does so like to keep everyone on their toes.
Why Putin can NEVER use a nuclear weapon:
“These instruments of war allow us to pummel their hubs, lessening the horror they are unleashing from the bases all around our borders…..”
That is why Ukraine needs a shitload of unrestricted long range fires. They can turn things around dramatically for Ukraine.
As Dan Rice observed:
Tomahawks should also be in situ: at least 100. The leverage would be :
“We won’t deploy them. But if you send one more ballistic missile into our land, then we will.”