US seems to want Russia to nuke Ukraine

The sinking of the Moskva and several concurrent strikes on Russian border towns by Ukraine seem like a coordinated escalation aiming to provoke a like response from Russia.

Whether it is its intention or not, Ukraine's actions will probably result in the Russian public wanting an increased use of force in Ukraine, which had been held back due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assertions that the Russians and Ukrainians are a common people.

Deliberately goading Russian escalation

The United States will help Ukraine to target disputed Crimea, considered core Russian territory by Moscow. The US may not recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, but the Russian government does. Therefore, should such strikes occur, they will be considered no different than strikes on the centre of Moscow ordered from Washington.

Even as it engages in the above risky policy, the United States is giving CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) suits to Ukraine, as if to prepare them to fight in radioactive wastelands. It seems as though the Ukrainians, led by the US, are expected to destroy their own country to save it, just to assert their nationalistic zeal.

The United States speculates openly about when Russia will get desperate enough to use a tactical nuclear weapon. Based on the tone, it seems as if they are certain it will happen, and are willing to maintain all policies with no interest in preventing it.

Scorched earth?

All of this shows clearly that the United States doesn’t stand with the people of Ukraine. It is primarily looking at frustrating Russia rather than preventing harm to Ukraine. Someone who stands with the people of Ukraine would not want it to become a nuclear wasteland, nor would they even believe it is wise for it to fight Russia in the first place.

But what does the US gain from nuclear detonations in Kiev, or elsewhere in Ukraine? We can only suppose the US might want this outcome just to incriminate Moscow and to convince the world of Western moral superiority, as the US had previously been the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in a war (a fact rival countries like to remind it of). It may also secretly view Ukraine as Russian territory, itself, and be wanting the lands burned and uninhabitable to punish the Russians.

If the US believes its power is in terminal decline, it might believe that incriminating a rival regime in the most barbaric act of the Twenty-First Century would give the United States vast moral authority against such rival regimes. Ultimately, it could mean excluding such regimes from the United Nations entirely, giving total control of the international system to Washington.

Russian and Chinese restraint

Russia seems not likely to use nuclear weapons yet, as there is no sign it is even interested in a troop surge or a strategic bombing campaign yet, although Russian generals suggested they could target Ukraine’s decision-making centres.

The US is encouraging conflicts at the peripheries of its rivals, while confusing gullible audiences at it home that it is somehow deterring aggressors. The same is certainly true of Taiwan, where almost the exact same policy is being pursued, despite it spectacularly failing to prevent conflict in Ukraine. This shows they are not sincere about preventing conflicts, in fact seeking conflicts and building traps at the doorsteps of their rivals in the hope to weaken them.

Read More »

India-Pakistan missile mishap is a lesson we need

The recent mistaken launch of a missile from India into Pakistan could have had disastrous consequences, and so could a misunderstanding over Ukraine.

The longer the fighting goes on in Ukraine, the more likely it is that an incident will cause a direct exchange of fire between Russia and NATO. Ukraine and NATO's triumphalism, with additional calls mounting in the West for some sort of regime change in Moscow itself, is the reason there can be no reconciliation at the moment and the main reason people are dying.

NATO should offer something to de-escalate

NATO's perception that only the Ukrainians are in trouble, and that it can just support them as a kind of proxy, is false. NATO is too close to wage a proxy war there, and faces too much risk to itself. The longer this goes on, the more likely it is that NATO will be dragged in against its own judgment.

The demands of the Russians have not changed (they just want neutral territories on their borders, not NATO-aligned countries bristling with nuclear missiles), so the choice to use force is no more than the extension of their attempts to come to an understanding with what they see as a deaf and inflexible partner. If diplomacy begins to yield results that are more promising for Russia's security than Ukraine's ongoing loss of military capability and territory, the Russians are likely to eagerly suspend combat operations. This puts the burden squarely on the side of NATO to avoid escalation and just make enough concessions that would allow the conflict to freeze along a new contact line, but they seem to be incapable of this, blinded by a belief that Russia can be thoroughly defeated in Ukraine.

Rather than de-escalation, we see increasing calls for NATO involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. With a drone wandering over the border into the NATO zone from Ukraine, and the possibility of projectiles eventually landing inside NATO territory, like the mistaken launch from India into Pakistan, there is a serious risk of escalation.

An escalation would be more inconvenient to NATO than Russia, which is why their top leadership has been quite sure of the need to stay out. Politicians without any responsibility for the NATO response are making unwise and bullish suggestions about some moral duty to attack Russian troops, likely just to improve their standing with belligerent and jingoistic voters. Anyone whose words carry weight, and could actually result in NATO aircraft taking off to attack Russia, is quiet.

The war should be frozen

NATO enjoys significantly more security than Russia, with substantial buffer states in Eastern Europe that can, I am sorry to say, be sacrificed to protect the core NATO countries like France and Germany without turning the conflict nuclear. Russia, by comparison, has its back to the wall. If events reach a point at which nuclear weapons are exploding in Ukraine, this will present an existential threat to Russia that can only be matched by it launching nuclear strikes as far as Germany to push the threat away. The use of any NATO weaponry to target Russian territory will prompt Russian attacks on the US homeland and cause global nuclear war.

Despite attempts to portray Russia as the side that has engaged in reckless expansion, Russia's back is to the wall. NATO was safe throughout the entire Cold War, when the Russians were in the middle of Germany, and that was considered to be a nicely balanced situation. It seems that now, we are so expectant of total domination and so convinced of the idea that we "won" the Cold War, that we can't allow the Russians any kind of buffer and we have to have NATO troops parading in Moscow.

Unlike between India and Pakistan, there are real heated statements and even deranged and murderous calls appearing right now in relation to the standoff between NATO and Russia. A misread missile launch at this time could lead to nuclear bombardment, recreating the grotesque atomic horror of Hiroshima on a vastly larger scale.

The two sides should pursue every effort to freeze the conflict immediately, no matter how dissatisfying this may be to them, and go no further.

Read More »

Ignoring Russia's demands in Europe could be disastrous

What better way for bureaucrats to prove their strength than to poke a bear and see what happens? Surely, an angry bear with its back to the wall, cornered in its own den, is the best one to safely poke as it can do nothing?

NATO's defiance of Russian pleas to avoid further expansion are making Russia feel cornered. While this may cause some in the West to gloat over Russia because NATO is growing seemingly invincible, a Russian reaction could be serious.

Should Georgia and Ukraine join NATO?

NATO candidates Georgia and Ukraine have ongoing territorial disputes and Russian troops within their internationally recognised borders (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea), motivating their desire to get NATO membership so the alliance can kick the Russians out. If they join, Russia and NATO will be claiming the same territories as their responsibility. Adding these countries to NATO would lead to regular NATO encounters with Russian civilians and soldiers while Russia's entire armed forces watch from nearby. Russia already complained of NATO's near misses with Russian civilian aircraft and vessels. This could mean an extremely grave and perilous situation that might delegate more and more responsibility for keeping the peace to frontline soldiers and even civilians, removing it from the politicians who created the situation.

Is it good for NATO if airline pilots and merchant captains are responsible for preventing World War Three? Does this make the alliance more powerful, or a step closer to the Stone Age?

Russia is now spoken of dismissively in the press and among leaders, as some minor threat that can be eliminated by sending a few rocket artillery to Ukraine or imposing some financial penalty. Russia, meanwhile, believes the stakes are extremely high and that its national security is in jeopardy.

The encroachment of NATO close to Russia does not create any possibility of interdicting Russian missiles and making the West safe from Russia. In fact, it may crowd the Russian border with missiles threatening both sides and increase the likelihood of a Russian first strike because the stakes are higher for them now.

NATO suggestions about countering Russian nuclear weapons in Europe without nuclear weapons are perplexing. If true, this would put NATO at a significant disadvantage to Russia. The Russians express a lack of trust, meaning they think NATO is lying or is itself deceived.

An accidental nuclear war on the horizon?

If NATO is lying about whether nuclear weapons will be sent to the Russian border, we're in trouble. The Russians being unaware of the types and yields of the weapons being deployed against them could cause an accidental nuclear war, since they won't know this type of weapon is in the area. For Russia to even think NATO is lying entails the same problem.

In fact, being dishonest may be incompatible with NATO's entire mission as an openly declared alliance, making it unable to achieve deterrence. If NATO is dishonest, then the adversary cannot even perceive what it is doing, much less be deterred by it.

This was the problem with the alliances of World War One, whose secrecy made them ineffective at preventing a world war. NATO was meant to be an alternative to this, a clearly defined alliance with its own flag.

NATO troops on Russia border are paralysed by escalation risk

Russia officially reserves the right to a first strike if its statehood is threatened, which could even be short of an actual attack on its territory, if the enemy is at the gates. In a border conflict, Russia would be very resolute about removing an enemy force they say is menacing their civilians, just as the UK or America would be.

Finally, what NATO risks doing if there are tensions at the Russian border is placing soldiers who aren't even authorised to shoot in the direction of their opponent if they take fire. An attack on Russian soil is out of the question, to avoid the risk of escalation into a full nuclear war. This will paralyse NATO troops' ability to do anything, while the Russians have permission to do as they please.

So, what starts like a brilliant plan to corner the bear could instead just end up tying the hands of NATO troops so this bear can eat them.

Read More »