Posted on 09/11/2022 8:29:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
How the Situation in Ukraine Could Get Far More Dangerous
After days of a withering Ukrainian counteroffensive, the Russian defense ministry announced that it was withdrawing its forces from two areas in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region. In a video statement, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quipped, “The Russian army in these days is demonstrating the best that it can do — showing its back.” Ukrainians celebrated, and rightly so. While Russian spokesmen said that Russian forces were “repositioning” ahead of a new offensive, reporters on the ground cast doubt on such pronouncements both because they mirror Russian statements as it abandoned its drive toward Kyiv and also because Russian forces left in such great haste that they left numerous arms and equipment behind.
Western officials are understandably happy. “This [Ukrainian progress] shows the bravery, skills, and determination of Ukrainian forces, and it shows that our support is making a difference every day on the battlefield,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said at a September 9 press conference. Reflecting on his recent trip to Ukraine, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken observed at the same press conference, “Even as President Putin threw as much as he could against Ukraine earlier this summer, Ukraine absorbed the blow and now is pushing back.”
While it is right to celebrate the Russian rout, the war may be entering a far more dangerous phase.
Consider: If Russian President Vladimir Putin tired of attrition and decided to use tactical nuclear weapons, how would Russian behavior—a rapid withdrawal and even leaving key equipment behind—be different? The answer: It would not be.
The Biden administration allowed fear of Russian nuclear weapons to self-deter and to limit deliveries of the weaponry that Ukrainian forces needed in the first weeks of the war. Fortunately, against the backdrop of Ukrainian perseverance, they recognized how unbecoming a policy governed by fear and weakness could be. That does not mean, however, that the United States and NATO should not have a contingency plan both to head off Russian use of nuclear weapons and respond to their use should Putin now cross the line.
The White House and U.S. intelligence community may feel confident that they will have forewarning should Putin give the order to deploy tactical nuclear weapons. They may believe that satellite photographs, signals intelligence, and human intelligence will provide a clear picture. The nature of intelligence, however, is that there is always doubt and deception. Just as late Al Qaeda leader Usama Bin Laden used old-fashioned messengers rather than email or cell phones, so too might some core Russian commanders. During its 2006 war with Israel, Hezbollah successfully demonstrated the ability to conceal long-range missiles, thanks both to diversions designed to be discovered as well as other underground facilities, all built by North Korean engineers. This is not to suggest a North Korean angle to Ukraine, but certainly, Russian strategists look at lessons learned from every conflict.
Nor is it necessarily true that Putin would try to hide in advance tactical nuclear warhead use. In 2012, President Barack Obama drew a “redline” around the use of chemical and biological weapons in Syria. When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces subsequently used chemical weapons against a Damascus suburb, Obama stood down. Partisans subsequently questioned the existence of a redline. This was disingenuous as senior Obama officials had supplemented press reporting at the time with background press calls to think tankers and opinion leaders to enunciate how serious Obama was about his redline. When that wordplay did not work, many opposed to enforcing the redline shifted tack and argued that from the perspective of the bombs’ victims, it mattered little whether their death came from gas or explosive maiming. After all, the result was the same. Lost was any appreciation for what the end to the stigma associated with chemical weapons might mean for future warfare.
Putin might count on proponents fearful of any robust reaction to resurrect the post-chemical redline arguments in the aftermath of a tactical nuclear strike. He might calculate that Washington and Brussels will always look for a reason not to act or escalate and that both will be willing to engage in logical somersaults to do so. Simply put, Putin might calculate that Washington will paralyze itself until the danger of retaliation passes.
It is for this reason that the White House and NATO should make clear upfront that this will not work. They should detail the pain Russia will suffer should withdrawal be a feint ahead of tactical nuclear use against Ukrainian forces and cities. Such pain should not only include truly crippling sanctions rather than cosmetic half-measures but also include enhancing the ability of Ukraine to expand the zone of hostility to the entirety of Russia, from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. They should also detail the eventual financial and territorial reparations owed to Ukraine and all countries downwind from any radioactive exposure as well as those countries long victimized by the Russian informal empire.
The free world owes Zelensky a debt of gratitude for refusing White House advice to evacuate ahead of the initial Russian invasion. Biden, to his credit, overcame that mistake and allowed Ukraine’s president to do more than any leader since Winston Churchill to defend freedom and democracy in the face of evil. Zelensky deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
The policy decisions now looming for Biden may be as great. Celebrations may be premature if Putin seeks to achieve through nuclear weapons what he could not with manpower. To remain silent now, downplay the threat that Russia might use its tactical nuclear weapons, or let fear govern policy will mean the end of the post-World War II liberal order.
As the Ukraine war enters a crucial new phase, it is time both to step up deterrence and plan for what comes after Russian first use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
he Ukrainians and NATO know that most of the ground war is being fought by Donbas militias, but do not want to inform the public of that because it undercuts their propaganda campaign to make this “invasion” all about Russia.
We also know that Russia is much better at deception than Ukraine and NATO. Ukraine did nothing to hide its intent to launch an attack in the Kherson region and also signaled it would attack around Kharkov. Russia? Helped the Donbas militias reinforce their forces around Kherson (and successfully beat back the Ukrainian attack causing massive Ukrainian losses). Russia also leaked information that it was sending huge armor and artillery reinforcements towards Kherson as that offensive got underway when, in reality, it organized a tactical withdrawal from the region and redeployed forces south to Donetsk.
There is one more salient fact–the Ukrainian offensive around Kharkov took place without any meaningful support from Ukrainian combat air or artillery. Why is that important? That means the Russian air force–both fixed wing and rotary wing–is unscathed and intact. Russian armor and artillery systems also were not destroyed. If they ain’t destroyed they can still fight and the Ukrainian troops do not have a large reserve of armor and artillery to protect them.
Ukraine and the western media blithely ignore this fact and are celebrating the limited Ukrainian advance as if it were the reincarnation of the Nazi blitzkrieg into France.
One final fact to take into account. Ukraine has incurred horrendous casualties over the last two and a half weeks of combat. Russia and the militias have far fewer losses. Russia has not tapped into its trained military reserve. Ukraine has no trained military reserve left. So, for all of you arm chair generals out there second guessing Russia’s command decisions, please explain how Ukraine comes out on top? I look forward to your answers.
Very dangerous. Putin can’t walk away he knows that.
As many folks know there are a lot of very powerful weapons that are not technically “nuclear” but can cause quite a bit of damage.
The focus on “nuclear” weapons may be a red herring.
*yawn* always the threat of the loser. And it’s an empty threat that will NEVER happen.
Well, it is what it is at this point. Nukes are on the table and we need to have an answer, even if you don’t think Putin will use them... you need an answer else... the more likely he will use them. I think this is the sentence that sums up the current state of affairs when it comes to Putin’s nukes:
Deter him or kill him before he can use them.
Which ever route we take we better do it right the first time. Putin knows he is not fighting Ukraine, he is fighting in Ukraine...for now.
The Russians might have their own version of our Daisy Cutter.
Well, an SS-27 or later wouldn’t be a tactical weapon.
Those are strategic weapons.
They should have used a different pic. 😜
Why do ‘we’ have to do something? Many NATO members are right there up and personal - why the hell aren’t they involved?
I want OUR borders protected.
And Ukraine? They’re NOT a democracy - they’re NOT part of NATO and they’re slightly less corrupt than Russia.
The biggest plus for our involvement is DC white liberal ‘elites’ and global ‘elites’ and their whore monger, drug addicted sons - launder their money there. Not exactly a hill worth dying on.
GOPJ, you are on point, but sadly following the successful coup of 2020... the globalist, elites and a bunch of flat out communists inside our National Security apparatus are running the show... Like it or not, they are we until such time as we can put them back in their box. Right now “they” have the reigns and they/we have limited options. You are correct, problem is we are not in charge, the global coup is and they are running the show, very poorly by the way and to disastrous effect to date.
We are a NATO member and “right there up and personal” with over 100,000 American troops.
You want us NATO people to do what?
Ukraine is worse
More corrupt than Russia
Putin masters his Oligarchs
Zekensky is beholden to his
Lots of hands grabbing for our cash
Commentators in the English speaking world have speculated and threatened on behalf of Russian their use of nuclear weapons since the war began. Russia wants Ukraine intact to exploit it like the imperialist power they pretend they are not. They are not going to turn Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland.
Meh.
1/2 life is a beautiful thing.
Nope. As per all international reviews, russia is far more corrupt than Ukraine.
I can't imagine who asked this General to pose like this!
The fingers don't correlate with the facial expression....
They are not going to turn Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland.
There's a lot to consider here from a tactical perspective, politics aside.
A properly fused airburst whose yield is primarily derived from fusion is only going to have some fast fission products from the initial triggering device. Hardly the stuff of radioactive nightmares. A true tactical device - yields in the low kilotons - to take out ground forces by overpressure and shock effect isn't going to cause much, if any fallout.
The only real radiation you get will be the neutron burst from the actual fission initiator itself, whose effect is eclipsed by the heat and blast (unless it's an enhanced radiation weapon, i.e. a neutron bomb).
Granted, most "production" weapons (at least in the American arsenal) use Uranium-238 tampers for the tertiary yield, which does produce a lot of fission products, but that's on three-stage, multi-hundred kiloton or megaton weapons. Conversely, a tactical yield (ten, even five kilotons) probably doesn't even need a fusion stage and could be a pure fission device, making it relatively "dirty" by design. Again, employment is key: the commander would want to optimize for overpressure, not a ground burst, since he's not going for a buried/hardened target (like a missile silo). He's trying to destroy exposed troops/armor in the field, so an airburst and a properly calibrated shockwave is what he wants. The generation of fallout products would (theoretically) be minimal if the weapon was employed correctly.
There is the face of the “Slav’’.
Square headed, cold and brutal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.