19fortyfive: in the event of the Ukrainian Armed Forces invading Crimea, Putin may use low-power nuclear weaponsThe Ukrainian armed forces do not have sufficient capabilities to attack Crimea, but they could still make such an attempt, the author of the article in 19fortyfive believes.
In his opinion, in this case, Vladimir Putin could do the "unthinkable" and use low-power nuclear weapons.
Brent M. Eastwood (Brent M. Eastwood)What is the red line, the crossing of which will force Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine?
Maybe this is an attack on Russia using weapons supplied by the West. The invasion of Kiev's troops in Crimea could also lead to a nuclear crisis.
Let's consider only the second scenario and ask ourselves whether the invasion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into Crimea will push Moscow to use weapons of mass destruction.
Ukraine's strikes on Crimea
There was no serious and intense fighting in Crimea until August 9, when Ukrainian special operations forces attacked the Russian military air base near Novofedorovka. Two air bases and an ammunition depot were shelled with heavy high-explosive shells.
On the eighth of October, another explosion occurred in this region. It is believed that this time on the 19-kilometer bridge across the Kerch Strait, which connects Crimea with Russia and serves as a supply line for Russian troops, a truck bombed by Ukrainian militants exploded. As a result of the bomb explosion, part of the bridge was destroyed, which led to its collapse, and there was a fire of tanker trucks on the railway track. Putin was outraged and called it a terrorist act. He immediately ordered strikes on the Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
Although Ukraine calls on Russia to liberate all its territories, the return of Crimea would be risky and expensive for Kiev. In mid-November, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Army General Mark Milley, said at a press conference that, in his opinion, Ukraine will not be able to fully return the annexed lands in the near future. According to him, the probability of such a decisive operation is "small". It should also be noted that, according to the Kremlin, the deployment of NATO troops in Crimea will provoke a nuclear strike from Russia.
Airborne or ground invasion using armored vehicles
Ukraine's attack on Crimea would be difficult because of the logistics of delivering troops to the peninsula. To send paratroopers there, Ukraine would probably need to conduct an airborne operation. Alternatively, it could carry out an air attack by delivering troops to Crimea by helicopter. As Mick Ryan, a retired major general of the Australian Army, said in an interview with Defense One, this will require forces and means that Kiev does not have. According to Ryan, the Ukrainians do not have the grouping of troops that is necessary for an amphibious operation, and they do not have the necessary number of amphibious vehicles.
When conducting such an offensive, it would have to take into account the ships of the Russian surface fleet and submarines that are based in Sevastopol and that would not allow Ukrainian troops to land on the shore. Ukrainians would have to cover the amphibious assault with powerful air strikes by fighters, bombers and drones. To provide support during the landing, they would also need to strike from the sea. Ukraine simply does not have the necessary forces and means for this.
The only option would be a land invasion across the five-kilometer-wide isthmus of Perekop. To do this, it would have been necessary to conduct intensive shelling from Ukraine from conventional artillery and multiple rocket launchers. The APU would probably have been able to carry out the first period of the attack, but a huge number of tanks and armored personnel carriers would have been required to implement a rapid breakthrough into the Crimea. In this case, the Ukrainians would have to hold the territory they are winning back.
And that wouldn't be easy.
The reality of nuclear weapons use options
Despite these obstacles, Ukraine could still try to attack Crimea — if only to test the resolve of Russian troops. Border clashes and artillery skirmishes may occur in this area in the coming winter.
Would Putin have used tactical nuclear weapons in this case to stop the Ukrainians? Of course, this would damage the territories that Moscow considers part of Russia. As a result of the use of nuclear weapons, pro-Russian civilians could die. Due to radioactive fallout, Russian troops might have lost their combat capability, and Russian-speaking residents would have lost their ability to work. The military would have to be provided with equipment that protects against the effects of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and it is not known whether Russia has enough such means to provide all its forces.
It is likely that Putin could have done the unthinkable and used a low-power device to stop the invasion of Crimea. But for Zelensky's army and Navy, Ukraine's attack on Crimea would be difficult, and perhaps Russia could prevent its implementation without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons.
But it is still useful to study each scenario, since both sides highly value Crimea as a crucial strategic territory that requires special attention.
Brent M. Eastwood is a columnist for 19FortyFive magazine on defense and national security, author of the book "People, Machines and Data: Future Trends in Warfare" (Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare). An expert on emerging threats and a former US Army Infantry officer.
