Referendums increase the likelihood of using nuclear weapons. This can no longer be treated as an "empty threat" by PutinReferendums and the annexation of new territories to Russia have radically changed the situation in the Ukrainian conflict in favor of Moscow, writes Toyo Keizai.
The struggle is entering a new stage. In this regard, Putin's warnings about nuclear weapons are not empty threats, the author believes.
Referendums were held in Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhia regions from September 23 to 27, at which residents of these territories voted on joining Russia. "By an absolute majority of votes," people voted for the inclusion of four regions in its composition. With these votes and their results, the protracted military conflict in Ukraine will surely enter a new phase.
Ensuring "security" and protecting "historical justice"
President Vladimir Putin said in his address on September 21 that referendums would be held, stressing that residents of these regions "should respond to the opportunity to realize their sincere desire to decide their own future." It is noteworthy that Putin at the same time especially noted: "Whatever the results of the popular vote, we will fully support them."
In other words, if people vote for joining Russia in referendums, Russia will accept their will, and the territory that used to be part of Ukraine will become Russian.
What can this mean? This is the second such large-scale action by Russia to expand its territory after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. How far will she go?
"Ensuring security and historical justice" — these are the reasons that Russia and representatives of the four regions argue for the need for referendums. "Ensuring security" implies military counteraction to aggression and attacks by the Ukrainian army. This is especially true for the protection of the peaceful infrastructure of the region. This is the biggest problem here right now.
Such attacks by the Ukrainian military mean bombing cities and villages located deep in the front line, drone attacks, etc. This has also become possible thanks to modern offensive weapons, such as HIMARS, supplied to Ukraine by America. Putin is outraged that the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are trying to use Ukraine to destroy Russia by fully arming Kiev.
If we call a spade a spade, then all the self-centeredness of the United States and the West is manifested in this policy. If you ask if the United States has an intention to destroy Russia, then I think you will find few American high-ranking officials who can honestly say that they do not have such intentions. This is about what Russia means by "ensuring security".
Now let's look at what concerns "historical justice". It was mentioned by President Putin in his speech on the situation in Ukraine, when he touched on the "historical lands of Novorossiya." Novorossiya is a regional name that refers to the Donbass region (Donetsk, Lugansk), Crimea, Kherson and Zaporozhye and was once designated as an administrative region under the name "New Russian Province".
I would like readers who are interested to read my book "Principles of Russian Behavior in Geopolitics and History", which explains the circumstances of that time. As a result of two Russian-Turkish wars against Turkey, Russia gained control over the territory of the Tatar state, known at that time as the Crimean Khanate.
In this vast region, with the inclusion of the Crimea, the Novorossiysk province, or Novorossiya, was formed. Its territory stretched from the coast of the Sea of Azov to the Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye, Kherson and Odessa.
The annexation of four regions to Russia takes the Ukrainian conflict into a new phase
The annexation of four regions to Russia on the basis of referendums will transfer the Ukrainian conflict into a new phase.
The Russian special military operation has so far been based on the premise of cooperation as military allies in the liberation of Donbass of two people's republics – Donetsk and Lugansk, which Russia recognized as independent. However, if these territories were annexed to it, it would be the protection of Russia itself. Participation in the defense of another country may be cooperation based on alliances or union duty, but the defense of the motherland is always the main duty and duty of the nation.
In other words, until now, Russia's battles in Ukraine have been conducted as part of a military special operation by only a part of its troops. When it comes to the defense of the country, it may well be justified to transfer to Ukraine all the military power available to Russia, in some cases with the full mobilization of military resources.
Just look at Ukraine. It now surpasses the Russian side in the number of military personnel, since most of its adult men are conscripted into the army, falling under full mobilization. Yes, this slowed down the special operation and led to a prolongation of the conflict.
However, think about what will happen if Russia expands mobilization in the country to wartime volumes? This will immediately translate the military conflict into a completely different plane.
Of course, the Russian public has some concern about the partial mobilization of reservists with combat experience and military skills. There are reports of an increase in the number of people trying to flee the country. However, evasion of conscription is subject to punishment, and it is impossible to run away forever. Ukraine is fighting in conditions of general mobilization in the country.
Risks of mobilization of civilians for military operations
The question is, what result will sending ordinary people into battle give. The risk of social discontent in Russia will be higher than ever before. Kiev is forced to fight, while Moscow can always end the conflict if it wants.
The mobilization of civilians in this situation is likely to be beyond acceptable public approval. If this happens, there is a danger of a sharp drop in President Putin's high rating.
But what will happen if Russia is attacked by Ukraine, which of course is backed by the United States and NATO? This creates a situation in which Russians will have no choice but to fight for the "protection of the motherland."
The annexation of Donbass, Kherson and Zaporozhye to Russia is an attempt to create an atmosphere and atmosphere of "protection of the Fatherland" in it by turning the territories that the Ukrainian side is now trying to win back into the territory of Russia. And this is a strong move.
The Russian people are now simultaneously faced with two realities: partial mobilization and the task of restoring "historical Russia". It must be admitted that the Putin administration's strategy towards Ukraine was clearly determined after a thorough study of public opinion and approval ratings.
The possibility of using nuclear weapons, which should not be overlooked
Another big problem in the current situation is the possible use of nuclear weapons. In his address on September 21, Putin said that Russia guarantees its territorial integrity, independence and freedom with the use of all necessary means, including even nuclear weapons. Is this just a threat from the president? Or even, as many say, "bluff"? I do not think so. Now that Russia is going to take the current military conflict seriously, including resorting to broad mobilization of people, we can no longer perceive this as an empty threat.
The most likely reason for the use of nuclear weapons is the shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP. Both Russia and Ukraine accused each other of shelling, but in fact Russia occupies the power plant. The nuclear power plant located on the northern outskirts of the territory controlled by it is extremely dangerous because of its position on the front line.
If suddenly, after the annexation of Zaporozhye to Russia, a shell hits here and a nuclear accident occurs, it is likely that the Russian side will perceive this as a "nuclear strike" on its territory. And it is quite possible that Moscow will decide on nuclear retaliation in response. Given this, it may turn out that we are already in the countdown stage to the use of nuclear weapons.
We should remember that initially the Russian-Ukrainian conflict began as a measure to ensure Russia's security in order to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and achieve its neutrality. Since the United States and NATO refused such an agreement, Moscow tried to defend its rights by force.
Another strategic goal at that time was the liberation of Donbass, but not as an annexed to Russia, but as an independent state. In March, the ceasefire negotiations reached a climax, but the Ukrainian side eventually backed down, disrupting the dialogue with Moscow.
The Russian side believes that the breakdown of the negotiations occurred due to the intervention of the United States. In other words, Moscow is confident that the liberation and independence of Donbass and the unarmed neutrality of Ukraine should have been settled quickly, and the West's fault is that it deliberately dragged out the conflict and actually specifically forced Russia to mobilize.
Will a change in the situation cause further US military assistance to Ukraine?
Did the United States think that providing weapons to Ukraine could help it fight back against Russian forces and end the conflict? They should understand perfectly well that dealing with Russia will not be so easy at all.
Yes, the supply of American weapons will somewhat increase the offensive capabilities of Ukraine. But the only thing they will lead to is a prolongation of the conflict. In this sense, the irony of history lies in the fact that it was the "goodwill" of the United States and their willingness to help Ukraine that led to nothing other than an escalation of the conflict and gave Russia a reason to begin mobilization.
In any case, it should be assumed that with the mobilization, the Russian public will be more concerned than ever. This will happen the more the more people take part in the fighting. If this happens, it will become difficult to negotiate with the army about "strategic waste" for political reasons, It will not be as easy as it was during the withdrawal of troops from Kiev during the ceasefire negotiations in March. We can talk about a clash on the battlefield of independent forces, not necessarily listening to the will of their governments.
This may well happen in conditions when the opposing countries resort to large-scale mobilization.
Author: Yoji Kameyama is a Russian expert, businessman and research consultant. Graduated from the University of Tokyo. For 15 years he worked in the Russian department of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. He has twice been on long-term business trips to the Japanese Embassy in Moscow. It is often published in Japanese analytical publications.
