On Sunday, President Joe Biden authorized the use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles by Ukraine for strikes inside Russia. The sudden reversal of policy represents a dramatic escalation in the war that will require a strong response from Moscow. President Putin has repeatedly warned that firing missiles at targets located on Russian territory would trigger harsh retaliatory attacks not just on sites in Ukraine but also on those nations that are directly involved in the strikes, namely NATO and the United States. As military analyst Will Schryver noted:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Read on X
.
With his back against the wall, we expect that Putin will defend his country just as the US would defend itself if Chinese contractors, using Chinese missile systems, linked to Chinese satellites and technology, fired missiles at targets in the US from locations in Mexico. The situation is the same here which is why Putin went to great lengths to explain the problem in May when he said the following:
….the final target selection… can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. … Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realize what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.
The point Putin was making can be summarized like this:
In other words, the long-range missiles are made by NATO, furnished by NATO, operated and launched by NATO contractors, whose targets are selected by NATO experts using space reconnaissance data provided by NATO. In every respect, the firing of long-range precision weapons at targets in Russia, is a NATO-US operation. The fact that the system may have been located on Ukrainian soil does not mitigate Washington’s role in the aggression. Bottom line: Putin will defend his country against foreign aggression in the same way that any US president would defend America.
Naturally, Biden’s critics have said that his actions are pushing the US towards World War III. (which is true) But what is equally shocking is that Biden has been informed by his top advisors that using the ATACMS would have no material impact on the outcome of the war which is already a ‘lost cause’. (Russian troops are currently advancing at the fastest pace since the war began while Ukraine’s frontlines continue to collapse.) The only effect the policy-change will have is to put US and NATO military assets and bases at greater risk. Biden was aware of this when he made his decision which further illustrates his inability to grasp the consequences of his actions.
So what can we expect now that Biden has forced Putin to respond?
First of all, we can expect Putin to continue to press ahead until he has liberated the Donbas and achieved the strategic aims of the Special Military Operation. And while the use of long-range missiles will not hamper Russia’s progress on the battlefield, it will force Moscow to expand the buffer zone that will separate the two adversaries pushing deeper into western Ukraine in order to protect Russian cities from missile attacks. Some analysts think that Putin will seize all of the territory “east of the Dnieper River, as well as the Black Sea coastal regions all the way to the Danube.” This seems probable but tragic all the same. Ukraine will be a perennial economic basket-case with no access to the sea, forever dependent on the generosity of foreign governments. What a waste. Here’s more from Will Schryver:
…. when the realization of this objective draws nearer and nearer to being a fait accompli, we can be almost certain that the empire and its obeisant European vassals will do something stupid and bring to pass some level of direct warfare between them and the Russians. If and when that happens, then we will see the Russians finally move decisively against the US/NATO ISR assets in the region. And they will do so with at least two full years of battlefield experience, careful observations of its weaknesses, and competent adaptation and innovation cultivated by that analysis. Patiently Waiting to Strike, Will Schryver@imetatronink
IMHO, Trump is just as likely to “do something stupid” as Biden due to his feeble understanding of the conflicts’ origins and his blundering eagerness to impose a deal on Putin that Putin will undoubtedly reject. After two years and much bloodshed, the war in Ukraine is going to be settled on Russia’s terms, not Washingtons. Ukraine is going to be neutral or it’s going to be obliterated. Those are the only two options. If Trump thinks Putin will allow western Ukraine to continue to be armed-to-the-teeth by the West and serve as a hostile American outpost on Russia’s border, he’s got another think coming.
While Biden’s policy turnaround was a surprise it was not completely unexpected. In August, the Ukrainians launched an offensive into the Kursk region, where they burned villages, ransacked homes and seized a sizable chunk of Russian territory. For a while the forces seemed to be unstoppable, wreaking havoc and destruction wherever they went. Three months later, however, Ukraine’s splinter army is surrounded and taking heavy casualties. It’s only a matter of time before they are killed or defeated, which is why—according to the New York Times—Biden approved the use of the long-range missiles systems:
“If the Russian assault on Ukrainian forces in Kursk succeeds”, says the Times, “Kyiv could end up having little to no Russian territory to offer Moscow in a trade.” Later in the article, the authors add this: “(Biden) was… swayed, by concerns that the Russian assault force would be able to overwhelm Ukrainian troops in Kursk if they were not allowed to defend themselves with long-range weapons.” (NY Times)
In short, the future of the doomed assault force (that unwisely invaded Russia in August) has factored heavily into Biden’s decision to green light the use of long-range missiles. But it seems particularly delusional that anyone would think that Putin would negotiate to reclaim Russian territory or that he would halt his offensive because a few missiles hit targets in Russia. That’s just not going to happen. Putin did not want this war, and did everything in his power to avoid it, but now that Russia is involved, he is going to move heaven-and-earth to prevail. As we said earlier, the ATACMS will have no impact on the outcome of the war at all.
It’s also worth noting, that no missile system, air force or army is capable of beating Russia in its own backyard. That should have been obvious from the beginning but, of course, the critics of the war were banned from the cable news channels that have become the lone purview of retired generals, recycled neocons and other war-mongering fantasists. Even now these armchair warlords think we must intensify the conflict to “teach Putin a lesson” and restore the battered image of the withering Empire. The fact is, however, that direct NATO involvement would not have made a bit of difference in the eventual outcome because Russia presently has over 1 million men who have experienced high-intensity warfare, an industrial base that is geared for the production of weaponry, bombs and munitions, and an ironclad strategic alliance with the world’s undisputed economic powerhouse (China) that will certainly come to Moscow’s aid if push-comes-to-shove. Here’s more from Schryver:
I continue to be convinced the US/NATO could never win and will never fight a war against Russia in eastern Europe – unless the #EmpireAtAllCosts death cult somehow seizes the reins of power, in which case, it will become the biggest catastrophe in US military history, and very possibly result in a civilization-ending nuclear war.
For me, one of the most intriguing aspects of the unprecedented levels of propaganda beclouding the ongoing Ukraine War is the incessant claim, from the very beginning, of the alleged strategic, tactical, and logistical ineptitude of the Russian military….
Never mind the numerous reports from western mercenaries and foreign legion volunteers who managed to escape back to their home countries after very brief and terrifying “tours of duty” in Ukraine, all of whom relate similar accounts.
They talk about encountering overwhelming firepower for the first time in their military careers, and they soberly warn anyone else thinking of embarking on a “safari” to kill Russians that it was “nothing like Iraq” and they feel very lucky to have made it out alive – often without ever firing their weapon, nor having even seen a Russian soldier.
Never mind also the fact that there are few if any conscripts among the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, and few if any reports in Russian independent media sources of demoralized, under-supplied Russian battalions in any theater of the war.
Quite to the contrary, every indication I have seen suggests that Russian morale is sky high, both among the soldiers doing the fighting and the Russian public at home….
And with that preface, let’s turn to the primary question: could NATO fight and win a war against the Russians on this same battlefield?
My answer is an emphatic NO – for three distinct but equally disqualifying reasons:
1– There is zero persuasive evidence that NATO soldiers, weaponry, training, logistics, and command are superior to that of the Russians.
2– Sufficient NATO forces could NEVER be assembled, equipped, and sustained to defeat the Russians in their own backyard.
3– The very attempt to concentrate sufficient US forces in the region in order to take on the Russians would very likely result in the disintegration of the global American Empire and its massive network of overseas bases – thereby rapidly accelerating the already-in-progress transition to a multipolar world.
…..if NATO had to go to war today against The Return of Industrial Warfare Russia, and all their troops and equipment could be magically teleported to the battlefield, they simply could not sustain high-intensity conflict for more than about a month, as this excellent analysis persuasively argues: The Return of Industrial Warfare.
The zealous disciples of indisputable American military supremacy will undoubtedly reply: “Overwhelming American air power alone would devastate Russian military capabilities in a matter of days; a couple weeks at most.”
The average Call of Duty warrior believes such nonsense, but I’m confident very few in the Pentagon harbor such delusions.
To the contrary, they understand perfectly well that Russian best-in-class air defenses would shred attempted US/NATO airstrikes. It would be a stunning massacre, the results of which after even the first 48 hours would see wiser heads calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
Not only that, but even attempted, but catastrophically failed NATO airstrikes against Russia would result in a massive series of counterstrikes against NATO bases and warships at distances never seen in previous wars. It would be a no-holds-barred affair.
Staging areas in Poland and Romania would be hit first and hardest, but strikes would very likely range over all of Europe and the Mediterranean. Russian missiles and submarines would sink several ships within hours, including, almost certainly, a US carrier.
This, of course, is the nightmare scenario – one which very conceivably risks an escalation to nuclear war.
One final observation on this whole notion of the US/NATO making war against Russia:
People neglect to consider the fact that US forces are dispersed all around the world, in over 750 foreign bases of varying sizes and strategic importance. In other words, most fail to appreciate the fact that US military might is highly diluted, and the only way to possibly concentrate a force sufficient to take on the Russians would be to literally evacuate almost every significant US base on the planet.
Japan, Korea, Guam, Syria, Turkey, multiple African nations, etc. A massive power vacuum would be created all around the world and would constitute an irresistible temptation for “hostile powers” to exploit. It would spell the end of American global empire and hegemony. The United States Could Not Win and Will Not Fight a War Against Russia, Will Schryver, Substack
So, if you were waiting for the end of US hegemony; wait no longer. It’s already here.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from TUR
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Source link