Three ways to escalate the war in Ukraine. Is Putin bluffing?
- Frank Gardner
- Security correspondent
Last week, NATO ministers met in Brussels to discuss, as they did not go far into Ukraine’s military equipment.
The challenge for NATO throughout this war has been to provide an ally and support enough to defend itself. And at the same time not to get involved in the conflict and not to be at war with Russia.
The Ukrainian government has clearly called for help.
Ukraine wants to have a chance to repel a future Russian attack on Donbass, so there is an urgent need to replenish Western Javelin, NLAW (next-generation light anti-tank weapons), Stinger and Starstreak anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, which its troops have already used effectively.
Ukraine received this. But she wants more.
It wants Russian air strikes and long-range missiles, which are constantly depleting strategic supplies of fuel and other essentials, to counter tanks, military aircraft, drones and advanced air defense systems.
So what exactly is holding back NATO?
The answer is escalation.
The risk that Russia may use tactical (ie short-range) nuclear weapons or turn the conflict over Ukraine into a wider European war will constantly leave Western leaders, and the stakes here are dangerously high.
What the West has already given to Ukraine
- more than 30 countries have provided military assistance to Ukraine, including € 1 billion from the EU and $ 1.7 billion from the United States
- supplies are currently limited to weapons, ammunition and defense equipment such as anti-tank and anti-aircraft missile systems
- they include the Javelin anti-tank weapon, which fires thermal missiles
- and the Stinger anti-aircraft weapon used in Afghanistan against Soviet aircraft
- Starstreak is a portable British air defense system
- NATO members fear that the supply of heavy weapons, such as tanks and fighters, could lead to a direct open conflict with Russia.
- This did not prevent the Czechs from giving away T-72 tanks
At the beginning of the war, Putin reminded the world that Russia was a nuclear power and that he was shifting his strategic nuclear deterrent to a high level of readiness.
The United States has not investigated this example because it has not detected the movement of Russian nuclear warheads from their safe storage bins. But Putin made his statement. He actually said, “Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal, so don’t think you can harass us.”
Russia’s military doctrine allows for the early use of low-power tactical nuclear warheads on the battlefield by Western-fighting militants who are disgusted by the nuclear numbers they have not had for 77 years.
NATO’s strategic planners are concerned that once the nuclear taboo is broken, even if a localized target on the Ukrainian battlefield is struck, the risks of escalating to a catastrophic nuclear exchange between Russia and the West will inevitably age.
Getty Images
-
800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems that shoot down planes
-
2,000 portable anti-tank systems Javelin
-
6,000 anti-tank systems AT-4
Source: BBC
And yet, with each atrocity committed by Russian soldiers, NATO’s resolve grows stronger and its fears melt away.
The Czech Republic has sent tanks, albeit obsolete T-72s, but it is a NATO country that has done so. Slovakia sends its S300 anti-aircraft missile systems. Both of these steps seemed incredibly risky when the war broke out.
MP Tobias Elwood, who heads the parliamentary defense committee, is one of those who says Putin is bluffing when he fears nuclear weapons and that NATO needs to do more.
“We were some kind of cautionary system to change weapons, we were going to provide,” he says.
So how exactly could this Russian-Ukrainian war escalate into a broader pan-European conflict that will drag on NATO?
There are a number of potential scenarios that Western defense ministries are undoubtedly considering.
Here are just three of them:
1. A NATO anti-ship missile fired by Ukrainian forces in Odessa targeted and sunk a Russian warship in the Black Sea, killing nearly 100 sailors and dozens of marines. The death toll from a single strike will be unprecedented, and Putin will have to respond in one form or another.
2. Aim for a Russian strategic missile strike in a column of military equipment en route from a NATO country such as Poland or Slovakia to Ukraine. If lost at the NATO border, this application could provoke 5 articles of the NATO constitution, forcing the entire alliance to defend the attacked country.
3. During the fierce fighting in the Donbass at the industrial facility will be an explosion, which will emit toxic chemical gases. Although this has already happened, there were no casualties. But if this leads to massive losses, as was the case with Syria’s use of poison gas in Guta, and if it is found that this was done deliberately by Russian forces, then NATO will call back.
It is possible that none of these scenarios are of interest.
But while Western countries have shown a rare degree of unity in responding to Russia’s invasion, there is speculation that they are simply reacting and not thinking about what the finale should be.
“The biggest strategic question,” said one of Britain’s most experienced military officials, who asked not to be named, “is whether our government is dealing with crisis management and has an actual strategy.” To do this, you need to think through to the end, he adds.
“What we want to achieve is to provide Ukraine with any assistance that will not lead to World War III. The problem is that Putin is a better poker player than we are.”
MP Tobias Elwood agrees.
“Russia is doing this (it threatens to escalate.” Ed.) very effective. And we are scared. We have lost the ability to control the ladder of escalation. “