Mayhem in the Making
An update on the rapidly escalating situation in Ukraine (Free)
Issues discussed:
The President Biden administration escalates.
Russia makes slow progress, according to their reformed strategy.
NATO may resort to drastic measures to keep Ukrainian defenses from collapsing.
I am writing a longer piece on nuclear deterrence and scenarios for the possible nuclear conflict in Europe, and the world. Yet, I feel the need to comment on recent developments, as things are escalating rapidly.
The U.S. escalates
Yesterday evening, Politico reported that President Biden had secretly given a permission to Ukraine to strike Russian territory around the Kharkov region. Just day before, President Putin issued a stark warning against exactly such actions, i.e., using weapons provided by NATO to strike Russia:
The use of long-range weapons to strike Russia would rely on Western intelligence data, and would suggest NATO military personnel would be involved in the attacks.
Whether the “secret permission” applies to long-range weapons,1 and how Russia interprets such weapons, remains to be seen.
Like noted by researchers Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, President Putin is a reactive strategist, who does what he says he will. Putin reportedly told to President Bush in 2008 that if “NATO tries to move into Ukraine, the country seizes to exist”. We are now very close to that point, because of the massive Ukrainan losses and destroyed infrastructure. Ukraine is already a failed state kept function merely by the massive foreign support. This also means that we have to take the warning of President Putin, concerning the use of NATO weapons to strike Russia, seriously. He also noted that:
Representatives of countries that are NATO members, particularly in Europe, should be aware of what they are playing with. Countries with small territory and dense populations should be particularly careful.
The latter point was most likely directed to Estonian PM Kaja Kallas, who has recently suggested that Russia should be broken apart. I think that the woman is a menace.
At this point, I cannot make nothing but educated guesses on what Kremlin could do, if Ukraine starts to hit (long-range) targets in Russia with NATO weapons. As President Putin did not give any specifics in his threat, we can assume that the response could be asymmetric or symmetric. That is, retalionary strikes could be conducted by a proxy force and/or as strikes to non-military infrastructure, like the power or information grids (cyber attacks), or they could be pure military strikes.
The worst option naturally is that AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine) continue to strike to the Russian early-warning system. In this case, even a nuclear strike to, e.g., Ukrainian military base, could become in question, to show force and draw definite red lines. Note that the generally held view that a single detonation of a nuclear bomb would automatically lead to a nuclear holocaust is not plausible. However, I still consider a nuclear strike to be an unlikely response, at current time. I know more on this option next week.
Slow Russian progress
Russia is slowly pushing through Ukrainian lines in almost all parts of the front. Slowly moving, ‘grinding’ assault has become the Russian strategy dictated by the modern battlefield dominated by drones. Ukraine holds something of an upper-hand in the drone warfare, and while Russia is dominating the traditional battlefield (artillery, tanks, air power and men), losses can mount rapidly in open attacks in drone-dominated battlefield. Russian strategy seems wise, as does that chosen by Ukraine. However, the AFU paid a heavy price on this lesson with their foolish counter-attacks, especially during last summer.
The ability of Ukraine to master enough men to cover the mounting losses seems limited and there are reports of collapsing fighting morale among AFU troops. This is no surprise considering the horrifying losses of the AFU. There has been no point of continuing the war for a long time, but western powers are pushing for just that. For example, Poland and Finland have already given Ukraine a permission to strike to Russia with the weapons they have provided. Such actions could easily lead to serious escalation and widening of the war.
Conclusions
I have to say that I am glad that the large-scale Russian offensive, what I anticipated in my first worst-case scenarios, has not manifested. However, now there are reports of a massive 200-300k men buildup of Russian forces in the north and east. If true, this implies that Russia is preparing something major, possibly a large-scale offensive aimed to strike a fatal blow to the AFU.
Considering the path forward, we need to return to the question, what does NATO seek in Ukraine? If peace would be the aim, actual peace negotiations would be on their way, instead of the humbug currently played in Switzerland. We have no hints that such would be coming.
This leads us to the very worrying conclusion that NATO is seeking to expand the war. This implies that we could very soon reach the point of “escalation by any means” driven by the looming collapse of the AFU. This would, most likely, include all means to A) provoke Russia to respond with drastic means, including nuclear weapons, or B) to make it look like Russia resorted to such extreme measures (essentially a ‘false flag’ attack).
We thus have to be prepared for extreme developments during the summer and early fall. I will return to the scenarios of nuclear escalation next week (unless something truly drastic occurs). Remember that praying has never harmed anyone.
Disclaimer:
The information contained herein is current as at the date of this entry. The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.
No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held responsible for errors or omissions in the data presented. Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision, and readers using this post do so solely at their own risk.
Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.
Note the distinction between the annexed regions, like Crimea which have already been hit by NATO weaponry, and Russian “motherland”.