NATO escalation danger

Written By: Guest post - Date published: 3:17 am, June 8th, 2024 - 26 comments
Categories: nuclear war, Peace, Russia, Ukraine, war - Tags:

Cross-posted from Eugene Doyle Solidarity

The Armavir Incident – the destruction on 23 May of a key part of Russia’s nuclear defence – means the Doomsday clock is ticking closer to midnight. Most people don’t even know that a long-distance Ukrainian/NATO drone attack on the Armavir radar station north of Georgia knocked out a Voronezh-DM radar which is designed to detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles from as far as 6,000 kilometres away. It is one of three similar attacks in recent weeks.

The strike,The Armavir Incident – the destruction on 23 May of a key part of Russia’s nuclear defence – means the Doomsday clock is ticking closer to midnight. Most people don’t even know that a long-distance Ukrainian/NATO drone attack on the Armavir radar station north of Georgia knocked out a Voronezh-DM radar which is designed to detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles trumpeted by Newsweek as a great success, may have robbed the Russians of a couple of minutes of warning time, in the event of a strike coming up from the south.

“Map Shows Ukraine’s Record-Breaking Hits on Russian Nuclear Warning Sites” Newsweek reports. The article, triumphalist in tone, fails to address the central issue: how crazy do you have to be to compress Russia’s decision-making window before it must decide whether to launch nuclear weapons at you? And who thought this was a good idea at the very time that nuclear-capable F16s are about to arrive in Ukraine and the US, along with a clutch of client states, has announced their missiles will strike mainland Russia in the coming days or weeks? Never in history has a nuclear power been attacked in this way. Even at the height of the Cold War neither side was brainless enough to do what the Western countries are doing now: attack detection facilities and launch missile strikes on a nuclear power.

We actually need the Russians to have really good missile detection systems; it keeps us safe. The Americans have a superior system to the Russians: they have more geosynchronous satellites that hover over specific regions 24/7 and can pretty much instantly detect the heat signatures of missiles at launch. Ground systems, like the Voronezh-DM at Armavir have to wait for the missiles to gain altitude and enter the radar fan (think of the beep-beep-beep sweep of a submarine sonar). American nuclear scientists estimate that the time available to the Russian military and political decision makers may only be a third of that which the US enjoys. In the time it takes you to drink a cappuccino they have to decide if they need to empty their missile silos then go through all their launch procedures before they are incinerated.

This may explain President Putin’s recent statement that all necessary decisions and authorisations have been made in respect to Russia’s preparedness. It suggests a delegated decision structure that no longer requires political sign off. There just won’t be time.

He’s just bluffing right? Certainly America’s greatest military minds like Generals Hodges and Petraeus believe so; yet they have been wrong on pretty much everything to do with Ukraine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Another US general worth quoting is Mark Milley, recent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He speaks of the “nuclear paradox,” that the closer the Russians come to losing in Ukraine, the higher the nuclear peril. Which begs the question: what do the Americans think they are doing? Is there any sound, discernible strategy guiding all this violence, all this escalation? Or are they doing what they did in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan – fighting on, knowing they can’t win, but unable to admit it before the next Presidential election?

Let’s be clear: even the conventional gear we are talking about is serious: German Taurus missiles, French Scalp missiles, British Storm Shadow missiles and an array of US missiles are hugely powerful. They will do immense damage and kill a lot of Russians in Russia. You might think that’s a good idea but imagine if any of these countries were hit in return by similar missiles.

This morning I listened to Russian military analysts discussing what they saw as the need to hit British bases if Britain pushes ahead with plans to unleash Storm Shadows on Russian territory. President Putin has also warned that missile strikes on Russia would result in counter-strikes. Is this posturing, empty threats and blackmail, as Western spokespeople claim, or are we about to witness something that could imperil us all?

In war, what happens when an enemy shoots at you? You shoot back, right? What would happen if Russia fired missiles into the US? They’d fire straight back, right? So why is the West about to fire missiles into a nuclear-armed state and think they won’t fire back?

The NATO decision to strike mainland Russia with missiles comes as Ukraine is losing on the battlefield and is at risk of a major frontline collapse. Western analysts acknowledge the country has almost run out of trained reserves, is funnelling conscripts to the front with minimal training, soldiers now have an average age of 43, they are suffering a 7:1 or perhaps even 10:1 shell deficit and are completely outmatched in airpower, missiles, tanks, drones and electronic warfare.

The US response to the looming failure of its Ukraine strategy is to escalate. The plan was to crush Russia with sanctions, pour in hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons, take back all territory, turn Sevastopol into a NATO port and trigger regime change in Moscow – all these have clearly failed.

So what has changed since President Biden said he would not trigger WWIII by authorising nuclear-capable F16s? What we are witnessing is classic escalation but with a frisson of nuclear fission thrown in.

The New York Times, normally a compliant outlet for Pentagon opinion said: “Until now, Mr. Biden has flatly refused to let Ukraine use American-made weapons outside of Ukrainian borders, no matter what the provocation, saying that any attack on Russian territory risked violating his mandate to “avoid World War III.”

Biden, the NYT said, had “ clearly crossed a red line that he himself drew.” Joe is the first US leader in history to authorise missile strikes against a nuclear power – supposedly within a limited geographic range north of Kharkiv; he is joined by the Germans, and the British and French who say “the Ukrainians” can strike anywhere on Russian territory.

Military experts dismiss the fiction that these missiles will be unleashed by Ukrainians. German Taurus missiles, French Scalp missiles, British Storm Shadow missiles and various US missiles use super-sophisticated dynamic guidance and navigation systems to enable command and control centres in Western Europe or the US to support things like terrain contour matching, evasion and target confirmation. These are all run by elite, highly trained personnel from each of those countries. Open war between NATO and Russia could erupt as a consequence.

How has the media responded to the risk that Western countries may trigger missile strikes against their own territories? Let’s look at the headlines:

“Last chance to impress for Olympic hopefuls”, “Three suburbs might get a metro”, “Exclusive: Rupert Murdoch’s new wife excited about Australian visit”, “What is the point of Super Rugby bonus points?”, “Starmer on ropes over £2000 tax rise”.

You get the point. Our media is keeping us in a deep, deep sleep. We need facts, analysis and an insistence on dialogue and diplomacy before it is too late. George Orwell knew all about this problem. Homage to Catalonia, written the year before the outbreak of WWII, finishes with this description of his train journey back to London:

“Down here it was still the England I had known in my childhood: the railway-cuttings smothered in wild flowers, the deep meadows where the great shining horses browse and meditate, the slow-moving streams bordered by willows, the green bosoms of the elms, the larkspurs in the cottage gardens; and then the huge peaceful wilderness of outer London, the barges on the miry river, the familiar streets, the posters telling of cricket matches and Royal weddings, the men in bowler hats, the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, the red buses, the blue policemen – all sleeping the deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.”

Eugene Doyle is a Wellington-based writer and community activist. He is a 2023 Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War.

26 comments on “NATO escalation danger ”

Comments are now closed

tsmithfield 1

8 June 2024 at 7:34 am

This is just repeats a lot of the typical Russian apologist lines.

Firstly, the reference Ukraine/Nato with respect to the drone strikes is inaccurate as Ukraine uses its own drones for deep strikes to target Russian infrastructure. Russia already targets Ukrainian infrastructure with much more powerful weapons, so tit for tat is entirely fair in the framework of the war.

Secondly, the US as a key member of NATO has already expressed its concerns about targeting Russian nuclear radar systems for the reasons given in this article. So, targeting these specific assets is not something NATO approves of, for the reasons given.

Thirdly, a number of NATO countries have given permission for Ukraine to use NATO weapons to target Russian troops and assets in the border areas where Russia is massing to attack. This again is entirely reasonable. Otherwise, Ukraine has to just sit there and wait for Russia to attack.

The same with F16s which will likely be used as air defence. The Russians currently use FAB500 or bigger with glide modifications that allow their aircraft to drop these from well behind Ukrainian territory. And Russia's strategic bombers launch missiles at Ukrainian infrastructure and civilian targets from within Russia. Why shouldn't Ukraine have the ability to defend against these sorts of attacks with effective air defence that would be enhanced with F16s?

The approach you suggest is that Ukraine should just soak up all this sort of shit without response. It is simple for Russia to avoid all these losses. Just get the fuck out of Ukraine and stop trying to invade a country that was posing no threat whatsoever to Russia.

Finally, Russia has been blustering with veiled threats since the start of this conflict. The west has been steadily pushing back on the supposed red lines calling Russia’s bluff. In the end, Putin has no interest in being toasted in a nuclear conflict. So, as the evidence has shown to date, these veiled threats are bluster and nothing more.
SPC 2

8 June 2024 at 9:22 am

I am sure this will all be discussed soon as per a gathering on 15 and 16 June 2024 in Switzerland called a Summit on Peace in Ukraine.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/fdfa/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine.html

It is about that – peace in Ukraine – because defeat of Russia and removal of Putin was not the point of any contest over "Ukraine" – as to whose orbit the nation state was in.

Generally it is appropriate that nations choose it for themselves, without foreign interference – but not always. Obviously Russia wanted a buffer state within its orbit – but many locals wanted a future in the EU.

Russia's decision to acquire the less Ukrainian area, Crimea and also enable de facto independence in parts of the Donbass, was and is a breach of international law – thus sanctions. The continuance of sanctions and Ukrainian focus on strengthening its military (and ties with NATO), led to the 2022 invasion – and declaration of the ICC

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/russia-ukraine-icc-issues-arrest-warrants-for-top-russian-commanders-for-alleged-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/

For the EU (and UK) the matter is one of declining trust in both the USA security guarantee and Russian restraint.

Any nation has the right to ask for help defending itself from aggression.

Those doing this then have the right to help Ukraine target Russian military capability active in support of its Ukraine campaign. This does not extend to Russia's separate defence capabilty or nuclear defence.

What Ukraine itself does separate to that is a consequence of Russian action in Ukraine (targeting its infrastructure). The "nuclear defence" is extreme and is sure to be discussed a week from now.
joe90 3

8 June 2024 at 1:22 pm

We actually need the Russians to have really good missile detection systems; it keeps us safe.

A system that can be destroyed by a propeller-driven UAV isn't going to keep anyone safe.

/
- tsmithfield 3.1
  
  8 June 2024 at 1:46 pm
  
  LOL. So true. If that can do it, probably a decent hail storm could.
  - joe90 3.1.1
    
    8 June 2024 at 2:49 pm
    
    Thread on the rational behind destroying an installation 1,800 km from the Ukrainian border.
    
    @PutinIsAVirus
    
    Why the Ukrainian attack on the Voronezh-DM Radar in Armavir makes a lot of sense ?! Well, it ain’t going to be short so stay with me…
    
    (1/50)
    
    https://x.com/PutinIsAVirus/status/1796340109459198236
    - SPC 3.1.1.1
      
      8 June 2024 at 3:33 pm
      
      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1796340109459198236.html
Tiger Mountain 4

8 June 2024 at 2:45 pm

US Imperialism has not been able to tolerate a socialist country just offshore–Cuba–and has run a substantive spoiler campaign and blockade since its inception over 60 years ago, including an attempted invasion.

Yet US Imperialism has over 700 publicly discoverable military bases and spy facilities outside of its own borders. And who knows how many more secret ones and attack based satellites. US personnel butt right up against all sorts of countries, particularly Mid East, China and Russia.

It is inter-imperialist machinations and the creaking NATO that have led to this situation.
Some of the boneheads here that automatically choose 5 Eyes for some reason, need to realise that nukes are indeed now back on the agenda.

Internationalists say…neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing, but it seems there are hot heads that suck up to the yanks regardless.
- Belladonna 4.1
  
  10 June 2024 at 10:01 am
  
  What! Cuba has the right to exist, but Ukraine does not?
  
  The US was rightly condemned for the attempted (and poorly executed) invasion of Cuba.
  
  Why should Russia not be condemned for the attempted (and bloodthirsty, in terms of collateral damage) invasion of Ukraine?
  
  Seems there are hotheads that suck up to the Kremlin, regardless …
aj 5

8 June 2024 at 3:12 pm

It's worth bearing in mind that the use of first strike nuclear weapons is on the table for the USA and it's closest friends, according to this fount of wisdom, who scarily echoes the sentiments of a significant number of US politicians and some members of the armed forces.

Lindsey Graham: Israel Should Do ‘Whatever’ They Want to Palestinians Like When U.S. Nuked Japan

“When we were faced with destruction as a nation after Pearl Harbor, fighting the Germans and the Japanese, we decided to end the war by the bombing, Hiroshima [and] Nagasaki with nuclear weapons,” Graham told NBC’s Kristen Welker. “That was the right decision.”

“Give Israel the bombs they need to end the war,” he added. “They can’t afford to lose.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/graham-israel-bomb-palestinians-hiroshima-nagasaki-1235019216/
barry 6

8 June 2024 at 4:39 pm

While there is an element of truth, in that Russian early detection of ballistic launches is a good thing, the rest is overblown. The F16s may be nuclear capable but they will operate from/by a non-nuclear Ukraine, and will not have nuclear warheads.

Ukraine cannot defend itself unless it is able to stop Russia launching missiles or invasions across the border. Russia's radar systems support its forces in Ukraine and have to be seen to be a legitimate target. There may be a cease-fire at some stage, but until then Ukraine has the right to fight the enemy where they are.
Scud 7

8 June 2024 at 9:43 pm

FFS,

This Muppet obviously hasn't read the Lisbon Protocols & the Budapest Memorandum for starters!

Ukraine has abandoned Nuclear Wpns & other WMD's IAW the above.

Yes the F16's are probably Nuclear Capable but without the necessary cards in the black boxes IOT make carry Nukes, they are just plain vanilla F16's!

Lastly NATO & the US have abandoned it 1st & 2nd Nuclear Attack Response to a flexible response which does not mean a all out or part Nuclear response! This is already open source information btw.

My assumption atm,

The recent attacks on the Russian OTHR sites, is to allow Ukraine to do deep strike attacks with its Long Range UAV's on Russia's military & logistic bases, & it's critical infrastructure like oil refineries, rail yards etc while slowly degraded Russian Air Defence IOT give the F16's & Mirages the best chance to exploit their advantage against the Russian Military when they enter service sometime this yr from memory.

The Western Aircraft wouldn't be the game changer that everyone is expecting, because the lack the critical mass ie numbers but it will allow them to achieve local Air Superiority over the Battlespace & help facilitate the deep strikes behind Russia lines which is slowly paying dividends which is slowly separating the Teeth from its Tail. Which is bad news for the poor Russian Baggie/ Squaddie at the front.

As for the Plucky Ukrainians they are hanging in there.
UncookedSelachimorpha 8

10 June 2024 at 2:28 am

A worthy strike by Ukraine, may they make many more.

Russia doesn't nuke other countries because it would itself be destroyed. That is the only reason they don't, not because they haven't been provoked enough, or are waiting for X or Y red line to be crossed.

Russia's behaviour shows they are not restrained in any way by morality or concern for humanity. Fear of mutual destruction is all that restrains them, and that metric hasn't changed despite their threats and whining.
Jono 9

11 June 2024 at 10:33 am

Just LOL Scud..

Let's apply your logic to the Cuban missile crises…….

Kennedy starts addressing the USA public over activities in Cuba (How dare they…Cuba is a sovereign Nation that can do whatever the hell it wants..clearly it is Not a Threat).

Kennedy then orders a blockade of all Cuban ports..totally against UN and international law.(How dare they Again…please we need the international community ..including NZ..to send as many weapons as possible to Castro to stop this aggression..and if possible..the more Americans dead for their action serves them right)

Kennedy says he will use all means possible to "defend American interests" (See …I told ya..Kennedy is a tyrant interested in bullying states..what a wacko)

Honestly Scud…go buy a mirror and chant March 20 2003..and your issues will be resolved.
- Scud 9.1
  
  11 June 2024 at 2:43 pm
  
  Your mate Tsar Poots, isn't going to use Nuclear Wpns, as he is a dumb arrogant Slavic Muppet at last chance saloon with a pair 2's at Blackjack Table trying to bluff the soft liberal democracies of the West into not supporting Ukraine & allowing them to carry out deep strikes into the Russian Military Rear Area & further ie attack Russia's economy logistics hubs.
  
  I've seen this type of Batshit Bullshit Bluffs & threats etc while doing Chap7 Peace Enforcement Stabilisation Peacekeeping in East Timor 99-00 with TNI & it's backed Militia & later by the stupid thugs (I'll call them that as they weren't a Military Force on either side) in Sth Sudan when that imploded when the UN Peacekeeping Mission back in the 2000's couldn't do it's fucking job.
  
  Poots is applying the stupid inward looking Russian logic again on the West again and the liberal left/ peace movement & people like you have taken it hook line & sinker.
  - Scud 9.1.1
    
    11 June 2024 at 3:30 pm
    
    P.S
    
    Here's a book for you on the Cuban Missile Crisis to read.
    
    Nuclear Folly,
    
    A New History of the Cuban Missile Crisis
    
    By Serhii Plokhy.
    
    He specialises in Cold War & Nuclear History.
    - Jono 9.1.1.1
      
      11 June 2024 at 3:52 pm
      
      Good..I will read it..
      
      But the point still stands.
      
      The situation has changed because the NATO has given the green light to attack Russian territory.
      
      Up until this announcement the area in dispute was dombass..thus fighting should be there.
      
      This is clearly escalation on Natos part(because they can't handle the Fact Ukraine is losing badly)..but yet again rather than resort to diplomacy(Def an option)
      
      The reverse would be if russia gave saddam weapons to strike LA or NY when everyone thought Iraq was the battleground.
      
      The whole situation is actually in reverse in your head…Putin can turn KIEV to fire by non nuclear means…forcing the collective west into the abyss of using nukes…and Putin knows they won't because the Nato and the Collective West would be committing suicide.
      - Scud 9.1.1.1.1
        
        11 June 2024 at 6:29 pm
        
        Ukraine has been twice stab in back with Russia's guarantees once with USSR when it finally got it's independence post WW1 in the early 1920's when it signed away Eastern Ukraine to the Soviets and for Ukraine to be invaded again later on.
        
        Then when it surrendered it's WMD's under the Lisbon Protocols & Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security guarantees from Russia that it will invade or interfere with its economic & internal affairs with the US & UK providing the Security guarantees should be stupid enough to invade Ukraine in the future.
        
        In other words Ukraine like the rest of Eastern Europe including both Sweden & Finland don't trust a word nor anything the Russia signs on a piece of paper.
Jono 10

11 June 2024 at 4:23 pm

Scud..here's some reading for you..

A 1996 NY Times article explaining why NATO expansion is madness.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/opinion/wrong-time-to-expand-nato.html
- Scud 10.1
  
  11 June 2024 at 6:19 pm
  
  Well you better ask why Eastern Europe asked to join NATO & the EU then?
  
  Or why Sweden & Finland suddenly abandon decades or in the case of Sweden centuries of neutrality & asked to join NATO when Tsar Poots invaded Ukraine?
  
  Or why Ukraine asked for Security guarantees when it signed the Lisbon Protocols & Budapest memorandum when it surrendered it's WMD's?
  
  The answer is quite simple!
  - Jono 10.1.1
    
    11 June 2024 at 6:30 pm
    
    Your right the answer is quite simple..the U.S.A can fool them into being Proxies for their anti Russia agenda when the inevitable reaction comes. That way..the Military Industrial Complex of Raytheon,Lockheed Martin etc can makes $$$ out of U.S taxpayers….under the guise of "defense".
    - Ad 10.1.1.1
      
      11 June 2024 at 9:10 pm
      
      Sweden has its' own home-built military-industrial complex and won't be needing US companies at all. It's got everything from Saab JAS 39 Gripen single-engine supersonic fighters to Carl Gustav recoilless rifles, AT4 shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons, Gotland-class submarines, and RBS15 anti-ship missiles. It also cooperates with other military producers, with one example being the Stridsvagn 122, the Swedish version of the German Leopard 2 tank.
      
      Finland gets its stuff from Sweden, France, Germany and Israel. It has retained conscription for decades and has a very focused and large ground force.
      
      And actually Finland and Sweden sought to join NATO after decades of cooperation-without-membership because they could see it was in their national security interests to do so. Both populations were heavily polled by politicians before doing so.
    - Scud 10.1.1.2
      
      11 June 2024 at 9:53 pm
      
      No they simply don't trust Russia! Be it from Imperial days, USSR Days and now under Tsar Poots!
      
      Plus most of the Eastern Europe countries don't rely on the US Military Industrial Complex either for most of their equipment either btw.
      
      See Ad's comments below,
      
      Poland is sourcing it's MBT's from Sth Korea, plus it's builds it's SPG Guns which Ukraine uses etc. Couple of other nations have rebuilt/ redesign several ex Russian Tanks, IFV's, SPG's, Mi's, Hind's & Mig's to NATO's STANAG.
      
      Both the Poms, Frogs & German's build decent cruise missiles which the Ukraine is using to good effect amongst its locally made Neptune Missiles & it's reverse engineered Russian cruise missile.
- Belladonna 10.2
  
  11 June 2024 at 10:03 pm
  
  Nothing more recent than 1996?
  I think that most would accept that the geopolitical landscape in Europe has changed radically since then….
Jono 11

11 June 2024 at 11:35 pm

For something more recent go to mearsheimers famous 2015 lecture:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=3557s&pp=ygUYTWVhcnNoZWltZXIgMjAxNSB1a3JhaW5l

Bucharest 2008 Nato summit..more recent than 1996 is the red line. MINSK TALKS were attempts to solve Ukrainian civil war while also offering ukraine neutrality..thus Putin actually tried 14 years of diplomacy.
- SPC 11.1
  
  12 June 2024 at 6:40 am
  
  Very 2023
  
  But the conclusion (THE DARKNESS AHEAD) is still pertinent
  
  https://wp.ufpel.edu.br/labgrima/2023/09/08/why-ukraines-counteroffensive-is-bound-to-fail-by-john-j-mearsheimer/
SPC 12

12 June 2024 at 6:27 am

The mayor of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv has said that the situation there has been "calmer" since Russian missile launchers shelling it were hit by Ukrainian fire.

Ihor Terekhov's comments came nearly two weeks after the US and other Western nations gave the go-ahead for Ukraine to hit targets inside Russia near Kharkiv.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cv22jek87dno