Main Edition
US
FR
November 23, 2024 - 4:15pm
Major escalation is occurring between Ukraine, its Nato backers, and Russia. In response to the US decision to allow Ukraine to use US Army Tactical Missile Systems — ATACMS — to strike deep into Russian territory, Moscow has fired what it says is a new ballistic missile onto Dnipro in Ukraine. While the Russian missile carried conventional warheads, it is capable of delivering a nuclear payload, sending an ominous signal to Ukraine and the West.
Just as alarmingly, in a move undertaken in response to Washington’s consideration of these deeper strikes, Vladimir Putin this week lowered Russia’s threshold for nuclear weapons use in its official doctrine. The change says that Russia might use nuclear weapons to respond to a conventional attack on its territory by a nation that is supported by a nuclear power. Moscow is, in other words, warning that it might resort to nuclear war over Washington letting Ukraine fire US missiles at Russia.
Foreign policy elites in Washington and Europe largely dismiss escalation danger in Ukraine. They argue that crossing various Russian red lines — by sending tanks, F-16s, allowing the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to hit Russian territory, and tolerating Ukraine’s assassinations and drone attacks in Russia — has already called Putin’s bluff, and we need not worry about escalation, even the nuclear sort.
Coming from Ukraine, this cavalier attitude is more understandable. Facing an existential danger, heightened risk of escalation may seem relatively less significant. But the Western nations helping Ukraine have very different interests to those of Kyiv. Blowing off escalation risks, especially with the ATACMS decision, is strategic malpractice. There are several reasons why.
First, it is reckless to assume that Russia’s failure to respond to past violations with nuclear weapons in Ukraine or by inflicting serious pain directly on the United States means it is simply bluffing. It is, in fact, wrong to say Russia has not already responded to enforce its stated red lines. It responded to past actions by increasing the intensity of the war inside Ukraine, especially by air strikes against civilians and Ukraine’s key infrastructure offensives. Russia has also likely escalated horizontally by widening the scope of conflict, including by helping Yemen’s Houthis target Western ships, acts of sabotage in Europe, and most recently potentially cutting fiberoptic telecommunications cables in the Baltic Sea.
Second, the threat of nuclear war should be given a wide berth. It is simple expected utility reasoning to note that even if there is a low probability chance of an extremely destructive outcome, you should still take great care to avoid it. In any case, US intelligence apparently finds the odds of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine to be quite significant. According to David Ignatius in the Washington Post, intelligence officials believed there was a 50-50 chance Russia would use nuclear weapons in October 2022 to stop Ukraine’s advances in Kherson and Kharkiv. CIA Director William Burns publicly confirmed that in the autumn of 2022, the risk of nuclear use was considered very real. US intelligence agencies similarly warned that long-range strikes into Russia could prompt a dangerous counter-escalation from Moscow.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI fully agree with this analysis. The timing of the US agreement for use of its ATACMS weapons (with likely US personnel involved in their deployment) couldn’t be more egregious. Some have even argued the move may help Trump once he assumes office, but by far the most sensible thing to have done by the outgoing Biden team (i can’t believe it was his decision) was nothing: just leave well alone, and avoid unnecessary consequences.
I commented the other day that the decision was, in fact, un-American. I guess some didn’t like that, but i stand by it. This article sets out precisely why it’ll go down as the act of bitter election losers.
Broadly I agree, but unfortunately, this article again hides the true nature of what is going on. Russia did not react because Ukraine has struck deep into Russia, nor because Ukraine used US-supplied weapons. Ukraine has done both before, without Russian counters, and Ukraine does not need and has not sought US or UK “permission” to do so.
Targeting ATACMS and Storm Shadows must be done by US and UK personnel respectively; what Russia reacted to is the fact that the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks were perpetrated by, and under the direct orders and responsibility of, the US and the UK.
By all standards of the law of war, the US, the UK, the EU, NATO, and sundry others have long crossed the threshold from neutral to belligerent, but Russia chose not make an issue of it. On the issue of US and UK personnel firing ATACMS and Storm Shadows at Russia, Russia drew a red line.
US and UK have recklessly crossed this red line. Even in the hottest phases of the Cold War, both sides took care never to actually shoot at each other’s territory.
Russia has shown remarkable maturity and restraint, in face of mind-boggling irresponsibility and recklessness of Western actors. It is high time the immature apprentice sorcerers populating our ministries and general staffs are cleared out and replaced with adults.
The only reason the Russians haven’t reacted to this US madness is they are waiting to see what Trump might do
Where exactly is your evidence that ATACMS and Storm Shadows must be operated/guided by US and UK personnel ? And – should you be able to produce any – how is that situation any different whether Storm Shadows and ATCMS are used in Donetsk oblast or Russia ? Remembering of course that Russia passed a law claiming that Donetsk and 3 other Ukrainians oblasts are an integral part of Russia.
It is absurd for you, Russia or anyone else to claim that a line has been crossed here while Russia maintains is claim that 4 Urkainian oblasts are part of Russia.
I won’t bother commenting on the emotional claptrap of your later claims. Other than to disagree that Russia has “shown remarkable maturity and restraint” in invading Ukraine. LOL.
The Ukrainians have been asking the Germans and other NATO members for long range missiles for years, a while back 2 German generals were recorded saying their missiles could only be fired by the Germany Army, so if they gave the missile to the Ukrainians, Germany would then be at war with Russia. its probably similar with other US/NATO missiles
Its amazing to me how popular nuclear war is with some people, you would think living in Washington or London would make them a little more cautious
This is the best article I’ve read on this topic. Ukraine’s only hope of getting through this war without its cities being flattened WWII-style has always been to avoid precisely this kind of escalation. Starmer and the neo-cons
Pretty well every prediction made by the ‘experts’ about the course of the war have been wrong. Neither side can win: it must be obvious to Putin that western Ukrainians will never again accept rule from Moscow just as it must be obvious to Zelensky that the Russians will never give up Crimea. Time to negotiate.
The Russians are winning
They don’t plan to take 100% of Ukraine
They plan, buddy, and they can do that thanks to Biden/Obama decisions
Desperate marketing from US think tank lobbying for disengement from Ukraine.
In fact, as smarter observers have noted, there is no difference in the new rules of engagement for ATACMs missiles “inside Russia”. Since Russia claims four Ukrainian provinces as “part of Russia” and the ATACMS missiles were already used there. The Russian claims are self-contradictory and absurd. We know it. They know it too.
Ukraine is an independent state fighting a foreign invasion. Not a “US proxy” as the article falsely claims.
“So far the results have been awful”. Really ? After only a few days these clowns feel themselves able to judge with that degree of certainty ? And with no evidence given of these supposedly “awful” results.
There is plenty of evidence that attacks on critical military targets further inside Russia will reduce the Russian threat to Ukraine.
UnHerd really shouldn’t be publishing such drivel.
In 2014 after a violent illegal coup fomented and paid for by the US, Ukraine as ‘an independent state’ started massacring it’s own citizens (albeit Russian speaking citizens). Around 14,000 had been blown to smithereens by random shelling of urban areas before Russia intervened.
Peter B must think that boundaries drawn up by Soviet dictators are more important than the wishes of the Russophile population of the Donbass, Zaparozia and Kherson.
To be consistent Peter B should support national boundaries drawn up by one Austrian corporal in the mid 20th century as inviolate, unalterable without any regard to the wishes of the peoples inhabiting said territories.
Mind you the British were famous for doing exactly that in the latter half of the 19th century and the first 25 years of the 20th century.