19FortyFive: the supply of weapons to Ukraine increases the risk of nuclear warThe supply of additional weapons to Ukraine threatens that Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, and this is not part of the US plans, writes 19FortyFive.
The interests of Kiev do not coincide in everything with the American ones, the author of the article believes.
Daniel DavisRussia on Friday launched one of the most destructive and consistent missile strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure.
It is reported that a total of 76 cruise missiles were fired, which hit cities across the country. Ukrainian officials said that half of the country was left without electricity, and Kharkiv was completely de-energized.
Adding to Ukraine's woes, four senior officials warned on Thursday that Russia was preparing for a new large-scale offensive.
Ukraine may not be ready for an offensive and has requested new large-scale support from the West, but fulfilling this request involves an unacceptable risk to US national security.
The Economist magazine on Thursday published a series of three articles in which it assessed the Russian-Ukrainian conflict from the point of view of three top officials in Kiev: President Vladimir Zelensky, Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny and Commander of the Ground forces of Ukraine Alexander Syrsky. On the same day, their warnings were repeated by Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov on the pages of The Guardian.
Their unified assessment for the first time openly showed that Ukraine's position in the conflict against Russia is more dangerous than is commonly believed, and in order to get a chance to win, it needs large-scale additional support, both military and financial, and primarily from the United States.
This puts the United States in a delicate position, since Washington must find a balance between Kiev's requests and their consequences for its own national security. The reality is that Kiev's interests, no matter how relevant to Ukraine, do not coincide with American interests in everything. The bottom line is that the United States can help Ukraine defend itself, but it is obliged to slow down if Kiev's supply threatens our own national security.
Zaluzhny explained that Russia is putting pressure on the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) on the entire "1500-kilometer front line." It is extremely important, the general noted, "to hold this line and not lose positions anymore," because "it will be 10-15 times more difficult to liberate them than not to surrender." According to Zaluzhny, behind the front line, the Russians are creating powerful new forces for the winter offensive. "According to our estimates, they have a reserve of 1.2 to 1.5 million people," he said, adding that about "200,000 fresh soldiers" are already ready to attack the stretched positions of Ukrainian troops.
To prepare for this offensive, the commander is trying to limit the number of troops on the front line in order to prepare defensive forces in a safe area away from the fighting. "May the soldiers in the trenches forgive me," Zaluzhny added, noting that he was preparing strike forces "for protracted and heavy fighting" in January—February.
"I know I will defeat this enemy," he said, "but I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 infantry fighting vehicles and 500 howitzers." Zaluzhny promised to "talk about it with Millie" (General Mark Millie is the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff). So much military equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is needed to have at least some chance to fulfill the task that Zelensky set for the generals.
"The Ukrainian people do not want to compromise on the territory," the president said, "and therefore it is very important to reach our 1991 borders," that is, including Crimea. But the supply of additional weapons to Ukraine in order to regain all the territory lost since 2014 highlights two key dilemmas of Washington.
Firstly, if Zaluzhny is right and with new weapons his troops will be able to push back the Russian ones, and Zelensky really intends to regain Crimea by military means, then the chances that Russia will resort to tactical nuclear weapons will increase dramatically. Secondly, it is completely unclear where the West will get the equipment requested by the Ukrainian general. Those 1,500 armored vehicles that Zaluzhny requires are more than the total armored forces of most European armies, The Economist magazine noted.
The United States and most other Western European countries have already provided Ukraine with so many weapons and ammunition that their own arsenals are dangerously depleted. Only the USA, Great Britain and Germany have the necessary types of modern tanks and artillery guns, but none of these countries has yet decided to part with hundreds of vehicles that are needed to ensure their own national security.
If Biden provides Zelensky with all the weapons that his generals are asking for (in addition to the expanded training program for Ukrainian soldiers that the Pentagon has just announced), then perhaps Ukraine will eventually be able to oust Russia from its own territory. But supplying weapons to Ukraine — with which we have no mutual defense treaty — would jeopardize U.S. national security and deplete our own armored forces.
And vice versa: if we throw hundreds of tanks and other armored vehicles into battle and threaten Russia's control over Crimea, the chances that Putin will resort to nuclear weapons will be off the scale. Just a few days ago, Putin said that if Russia's territory was under threat, he would consider the prospect of using nuclear weapons. Russians of all political views consider Crimea a "sacred" Russian land. It would be reckless to support Ukraine's attack on Crimea in every possible way, which is fraught with a nuclear response.
The interests of Ukraine's national security in this conflict are clear and justified. They will do everything in their power to expel the occupiers. No one in the West questions their views and goals. But it is important to note that the vital national interests of America and Ukraine are not the same thing.
No matter how much Americans sympathize with the Ukrainian victims of this conflict, Washington's main and primary duty is to ensure the security of our country, while simultaneously fulfilling our obligations under the mutual defense treaty to NATO allies.
If satisfying Kiev's weapons hunger jeopardizes our own security, we must refuse. If military support for Ukraine creates a high risk that a desperate Putin will resort to nuclear weapons, we must again refuse, because our own population and allies will surely be drawn into a win-win war.
Ukraine's support is understandable, and no one can doubt the huge amount of assistance already provided. However, it is President Biden's responsibility to ensure that helping others does not put our country at mortal risk.
Daniel Davis is a senior researcher on defense priorities, a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army with experience in combat operations in hot spots and an author of books.Readers' comments:
Tamerlane
Well said, Davis.
Accurate, logical and, most importantly, realistic. All patriotic Americans are obliged to put our own strategic interests and security above all else. We all swore an oath to our Constitution, and it doesn't matter if others are in trouble, no matter how convincingly they asked. We are not a guarantor of peace, and certainly not to such quasi-allies like Ukraine.
And how does Ukraine intend to pay for the assistance already provided?And even more so for thousands of pieces of equipment from the list of gifts? Isn't it irresponsible to personally deprive yourself of the means to fight the main global enemy, Communist China, in order to confront a secondary and insignificant enemy? Although I personally trained Ukrainian soldiers, I consider it irresponsible and unwise to put our geostrategic hegemony on the line for them.
Michael DroyThe reality is that the United States and NATO produce as many shells a year as Ukraine shoots in a month (and Russia releases in a week).
They won't be able to deliver this weapon at all.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is sending conscripts to the front after five weeks of training, and the next crop of potential soldiers has long been in Europe or in Russia.
But let's blame Russia for the incompetence of NATO and the lack of Ukrainian forces, because otherwise we will have to admit that the United States provoked Ukraine into a war in which it cannot win.
Infantry GruntThe author is another stupid defeatist like Neville Chamberlain.
The same pacification once elevated the Nazis, and now the Iranian mullahs. Here's "Peace at any cost" for you!
Dan JensenHuman life and the national security of the United States are an empty phrase for our government.
People are dying, and military contractors and politicians are getting richer. That's all. It's all about money.
And then: What would America do if Russia installed missiles that could shoot down ours somewhere in Mexico? Or did she send troops to Cuba? Or has it entered into an alliance with Canada?
WalkerFinally, Davis confessed himself.
He's a coward. He will sell the world to appease Russia, because he was afraid.
The truth is that the problem is precisely because of people like Davis. Russia is brandishing nuclear weapons precisely because all sorts of Davises are hiding under the bed in terror.
TGNuclear weapons?
Of course, I can't read Putin's mind, maybe he really is so stupid, but it seems to me that Russia has a lot of other "apocalyptic" tricks to impress the West and make him stop all this nonsense.
1) Knock out all GPS satellites. Maybe not kinetic rockets, but high-energy microwaves or lasers?
2) Start blowing up pipelines and LNG terminals. Is it fair to beat the opponent with his own weapon?
3) Arm Mexican drug gangs with heavy guns? And also to train or provide intelligence? After all, they can also launch an indirect war.
4) And how do you like the idea of mining the main US ports?
In general, you understand. If Putin is really pinned to the wall, he can cause a lot of trouble, even without resorting to nuclear weapons.
