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. |
It's posturing. Why on earth would Russia nuke Ukraine when the fallout would poison Russia more than anyone? The US comments about Tomahawks as a tactic and it's worked. Putin and Trump have announced they will meet in Hungary though I'll be sceptical of anything Putin says. He's already worked Trump out so I fear it'll be nothing more than an exercise for optics for both leaders domestically.
ReplyDeleteFact is Russia/Putin is embarrassed by not being able to easily dominate a neighbour right on their border. They see the US is easily able to force project to every continent and maintain these bases while they have barely modernised their field armies since the end of the USSR, so they try to race ahead in missile tech and drones ( hence all the incursions of drones over NATO airspace).
No one wins in a nuclear war and all tyrants whether in the West or East want to survive and still hold power over their people. No State actor will use a nuclear weapon first as mutually assured destruction still applies.
Steve - that is a rational actor perspective. But what happens when theocrats are in charge?
DeleteThey would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud i fear. The 7 mountains nutjobs in the US are equally as nuts as the mohammadists.
DeleteVery much so. The rapture types who endlessly believe nonsense again and again
DeleteMAD only applies if the response time of five minutes remain the same. Therefore, Ukraine joining NATO, and fuck the rights and wrongs about joining what they please, is a nonstarter. Putin is not a great reasonable man, neither is fraud Zelensky, and Trump? Well, you decide that one but these three clowns, none of whom are "rational" men are all we've got. Not a great hand to play cards with.
ReplyDeleteIt is my guess if the boot was on the other foot, Zelensky would have acted little differently to headcase Putin. Not to put too finer point on it, and despite its many imperfections, this situation would not have occurred under the USSR! Well done western capitalism!!!
Caoimhin O'Muraile
I would not be as confident. The communist czars were even more expansionist than the current capitalist czar.
DeleteWould Zelensky have behaved differently to Putin were things reversed? Maybe even worse. The West is currently behind a genocide at the minute while Putin is much less vicious in what he is doing despite him being a right wing war monger.
But even if the Putin objective was to halt the expansion of NATO for the reasons this piece suggests, that has failed lamentably., He has an even bigger NATO border now than he did at the start of the war.
You do realise that the dictators in the USSR were so paranoid that at least twice they were going to launch pre-emptive strikes on the West? Only stopped by rational interjection
DeleteIt is not a simple question of how big the NATO "border" is, whether it is larger than the "start of the war" it a matter of response time. The strategic position of Ukraine is the pivotal issue. NATO weapons in the Ukraine would eliminate any present position of MAD held by both sides.
ReplyDeleteThe only long term and permanent solution to the danger we all face is the overthrow of the system which creates these dangers in the first place, global capitalism. In the early days of Soviet Russia Lenin, before he fucked up, supported Ukranian separation from Russia. A situation which he changed saddly, possibly given western capitalist aggression, an aggression which the fledgling Red Army repelled, just the same as they, despite Stalin, not because of him, repelled Nazi Germany. Remember, it is response time, not how big the border is.
Ukraine, despite having no nuclear missiles, still has the launching facilities once owned by the USSR. NATO would,no doubt, swap all countries it has gained through its expansionist moves, for Ukraine. That is why Putin should get Trumps verbal rhetoric in writing, because it is the US who control NATO. In that written guarantee, of Ukraine never being allowed into NATO, should be an assurance no future US President is able to reverse. Failing this let the fucking misery continue, if both Trump and Putin are serious, as well as Zelensky, such a simple solution should present no problem! Should it?
Caoimhin O'Muraile
Since Bucharest 2008 the West have come up with every excuse for thwarting the ambitions of Ukraine to join NATO. If they were serious about it they would have moved long before now. Too many in the West felt that allowing Ukraine in would only increase tensions with Russia, while others claimed Ukraine membership would have curbed Russian expansionism of the type warned about by Vaclav Havel. Putin now has a bigger NATO to contend with than he previously did.
Delete