Before he left for the region he warned Russian President, Vladimir Putin, that he will now seriously consider supplying Ukraine with long range Tomahawk Cruise Missiles capable of hitting targets more than 1,600 Kilometres away if Putin does not “stop the war soon”. Mr Putin responded that such actions would be seen by Russia as an escalation of the war with “direct US involvement” and the Russian leader expressed the possibility of a nuclear response to such a move.
There is no doubt about it if Ukraine had access to Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, they would be a game changer and with Russian ground forces struggling as it is such weapons could even be a match winner. Moscow have already stated the use of nuclear weapons in such an even is a “strong possibility”. The questions are, should the US supply Ukraine with these deadly missiles, and what does Putin mean by ‘nuclear retaliation’? Does he mean he will bomb the US? Does he intend to possibly Nuke Ukraine only? If he did go for the latter what would the response of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) be? Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore is not entitled to the protection of article five of the organisation’s constitution. However if Moscow bomb New-York then the USA are entitled to use said article five as they are the leading NATO member state. All getting potentially very nasty indeed.
If Putin nukes Kyiv would the US supply Ukraine with nuclear warheads to fit to the Tomahawk Missiles? That would certainly prompt Putin to launch an attack using his huge nuclear arsenal on Washington DC and other major US cities. Russia possess the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any single country, at 5,580 weapons, and if China were to enter the conflict their 600 missiles would take the number to over 6,000 missiles and countless warheads. Enter Britain and France, the other two nuclear armed countries in the NATO bloc, who would even the balance by adding their albeit smaller stockpile to those available to the USA. This is assuming NATO do not enter the conflict directly! Could Putin be banking on attacking Ukraine with ‘limited nuclear missiles’ therefore not giving NATO any excuse to implement article five? If this is the case and though, technically, he may be right in this assumption it is a very dangerous game to be playing. Ukraine borders Poland who are NATO members and one over flight, no matter how small, could trigger a full NATO response with devastating consequences for all of us.
One of President Putin’s main objectives, so he claimed, in invading Ukraine was to ensure that country would never become a NATO member. I can see his rationale in this because at the moment the response time Moscow have for an attack by the West is five minutes, and vice versa. If Ukraine were to become members of the Organisation that time would be reduced to two minutes which is nowhere near long enough for Russia to respond! Therefore the balance of power would sweep dramatically in favour of the West and against Russia. However, this rationale for invasion has been diluted somewhat by Trump's claim, when asked, that “Ukraine would never be allowed into NATO” - statements which some leading British politicians have endorsed, not least Michael Gove when the Conservative and Unionist party were in government. Perhaps Putin should use these guarantees as a pretext for ending the conflict. perhaps keeping the Crimea and captured Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainian provinces where, according to Moscow, the peoples there wish to be governed by Moscow and not Kyiv. Could this be a way out thus averting possible nuclear war? For this to happen Putin should demand the assurance in writing having it enshrined in so-called ‘international law’ and an element of trust must be involved by all concerned. What could the Ukraine get out of this? Well, not NATO membership but perhaps added assurances of Western assistance in defence, not offence, and a guarantee of European Union membership, could this be a way out?
Should all this fail and the worst possible scenario erupt, nuclear war, it could spread easily. India are a small but significant nuclear power and friendly towards Moscow. Pakistan, India's neighbour, are also a nuclear power and more inclined against Moscow, and the pair of them have been at loggerheads for years. Could these two get involved in such a conflagration of nuclear destruction? The possibilities are endless and the sooner we have a world free of nuclear terror the better, the problem here being, the ‘wheel cannot be dis-invented’! Plus what of the majority of countries which are not nuclear powers, including the majority of NATO countries? In a war between Russia and her allies and NATO all countries, nuclear or not, would be fair game for Moscow which is frightening to say the least. Where would such a conflict leave neutral Ireland? Well, though not a target and not being a NATO member we sound safe enough. This is, in fact, not the case because we would be destroyed by nuclear radiation fallout after Moscow bomb Britian, and that is assuming they would not attack the Six-Counties?
The best way to avoid this nightmare scenario is for Trump not to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk Missiles, as Russia do not possess an equivalent system, leaving Putin with little option. Putin should start listening to guarantees Ukraine will never be accepted as a NATO member and, subject to written assurances, perhaps begin a withdrawal. Ukraine may well have to give up Russian speaking territories including the Crimea, all once part of Russia, and settle for Western guarantees of military protection in the event of further Russian aggression.
If Putin nukes Kyiv would the US supply Ukraine with nuclear warheads to fit to the Tomahawk Missiles? That would certainly prompt Putin to launch an attack using his huge nuclear arsenal on Washington DC and other major US cities. Russia possess the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any single country, at 5,580 weapons, and if China were to enter the conflict their 600 missiles would take the number to over 6,000 missiles and countless warheads. Enter Britain and France, the other two nuclear armed countries in the NATO bloc, who would even the balance by adding their albeit smaller stockpile to those available to the USA. This is assuming NATO do not enter the conflict directly! Could Putin be banking on attacking Ukraine with ‘limited nuclear missiles’ therefore not giving NATO any excuse to implement article five? If this is the case and though, technically, he may be right in this assumption it is a very dangerous game to be playing. Ukraine borders Poland who are NATO members and one over flight, no matter how small, could trigger a full NATO response with devastating consequences for all of us.
One of President Putin’s main objectives, so he claimed, in invading Ukraine was to ensure that country would never become a NATO member. I can see his rationale in this because at the moment the response time Moscow have for an attack by the West is five minutes, and vice versa. If Ukraine were to become members of the Organisation that time would be reduced to two minutes which is nowhere near long enough for Russia to respond! Therefore the balance of power would sweep dramatically in favour of the West and against Russia. However, this rationale for invasion has been diluted somewhat by Trump's claim, when asked, that “Ukraine would never be allowed into NATO” - statements which some leading British politicians have endorsed, not least Michael Gove when the Conservative and Unionist party were in government. Perhaps Putin should use these guarantees as a pretext for ending the conflict. perhaps keeping the Crimea and captured Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainian provinces where, according to Moscow, the peoples there wish to be governed by Moscow and not Kyiv. Could this be a way out thus averting possible nuclear war? For this to happen Putin should demand the assurance in writing having it enshrined in so-called ‘international law’ and an element of trust must be involved by all concerned. What could the Ukraine get out of this? Well, not NATO membership but perhaps added assurances of Western assistance in defence, not offence, and a guarantee of European Union membership, could this be a way out?
Should all this fail and the worst possible scenario erupt, nuclear war, it could spread easily. India are a small but significant nuclear power and friendly towards Moscow. Pakistan, India's neighbour, are also a nuclear power and more inclined against Moscow, and the pair of them have been at loggerheads for years. Could these two get involved in such a conflagration of nuclear destruction? The possibilities are endless and the sooner we have a world free of nuclear terror the better, the problem here being, the ‘wheel cannot be dis-invented’! Plus what of the majority of countries which are not nuclear powers, including the majority of NATO countries? In a war between Russia and her allies and NATO all countries, nuclear or not, would be fair game for Moscow which is frightening to say the least. Where would such a conflict leave neutral Ireland? Well, though not a target and not being a NATO member we sound safe enough. This is, in fact, not the case because we would be destroyed by nuclear radiation fallout after Moscow bomb Britian, and that is assuming they would not attack the Six-Counties?
The best way to avoid this nightmare scenario is for Trump not to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk Missiles, as Russia do not possess an equivalent system, leaving Putin with little option. Putin should start listening to guarantees Ukraine will never be accepted as a NATO member and, subject to written assurances, perhaps begin a withdrawal. Ukraine may well have to give up Russian speaking territories including the Crimea, all once part of Russia, and settle for Western guarantees of military protection in the event of further Russian aggression.
Trump may well have scored a limited success in the Middle East, though he has not ‘ended the war’ but in the Russian Ukraine conflict much still needs to be done. Supplying Zelensky with Tomahawk Missiles is not a good start from a man who said, remember, he would have the war stopped within “twenty-four hours”. On this one he has definitely failed but surely now it is time for all concerned to sit down and talk before nuclear annihilation of planet earth becomes a reality?
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments