https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/02/nato-freakout-over-crumbling-ukraine-military-poland-threatens-us-with-nuclear-development-if-no-aid-package.html
Admittedly the Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski is rabidly anti-Russian. Fortunately, there does not seem to be much mainstream Anglosphere press amplification of his remarks at the UN last Friday and his follow-up comments to Bloomberg and CNN. As we’ll see, they are based on the barmy idea that Russia will roll up Poland after fully eating up Ukraine. So Poland is threatening the US that if it does not keep pouring money into the Ukraine black hole, NATO members will have to take matters into their own hands by getting nukes.
As we’ll discuss soon, the vehemence of Sikorski’s comment seems triggered not just by the House’s refusal to approve $61 billion for Ukraine, but also the spectacle of the Ukraine forces starting to crumble with a defeat that at the end turned into a rout in Adiivka.
In a recent post, we considered the question of how Russia seemed vanishingly unlikely to defeat its ultimate opponent, the US and NATO, in the Ukraine proxy war, and what that could mean for how Russia prosecutes the Ukraine war. Recall the Clausewitz standard:
War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.
While NATO members may eventually settle down into what Aurelien calls epic sulking, Sikorski’s remarks illustrate that the most ferociously ant-Russian NATO members, Poland and the Baltic states, will continue to whip up fears of Russian invasion and sapping of precious bodily fluids.
And could they do more than just bark at Russia? As we’ll discuss, Poland’s current and likely near-term support of the Ukraine conflict may Russia in a tricky position and could even affect how it paces the war.
First, let’s look at what Sikorski said1:
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1761507168405348536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1761507168405348536%7Ctwgr%5E9fcb5fd5d0b5f93c8ed5bd47fde1c5e31b6bc975%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2024%2F02%2Fnato-freakout-over-crumbling-ukraine-military-poland-threatens-us-with-nuclear-development-if-no-aid-package.html
Recall that Sikorski, who at the time was not in the Polish government, thanked the US for the destruction of the NordStream pipelines.
His recent remark is not a direct threat but it still is awfully specific. Fortunately, Poland and the Baltic states are not well positioned to move it forward: Wikipedia does not list any of them as having nuclear reactors. Nevertheless, Sikorski’s remarks about nuclear weapons make for a jarring contrast with Poland’s position in opposition to nuclear power being include in the EU “green finance taxonomy”.
Sikorski’s threat display demonstrates that Ukraine defeat at Adiivka has punctured the very large propaganda balloon about inevitable Ukraine victory. For one-stop shopping, Similicius the Thinker has an excellent sitrep that is very heavy on Western news coverage, with alarmed headlines from virtually all major outlets, including the Washington Post, New York Times, The Hill, Politico, ABC.
In concert with downbeat official statements, many reports did not try to pretty up the fact that the Ukraine forces crumbled in Adiivka, by highlighting the capture of troops and the disorderly evacuation, aka rout. Moreover, the press is also covering unsightly realities like the exhaustion and demoralization of Ukraine forces, the losses they have suffered, and even the almost medieval conditions in the trenches.
But Sikorski’s belligerent talk is in keeping with the assessment of Politica’s morning European newsletter, that the posturing greatly exceeds the ability to do much:
LEADERS’ SUMMIT IN PARIS: Some 20 European leaders are meeting today at the Elysée Palace for a hastily convened summit in support of Ukraine….
Their goal? Getting their mojo back to help Ukraine win against Russia’s advancing troops….
Words vs. actions: The problem with the EU’s enthusiastic support? To date, the rhetoric hasn’t been matched with sufficient ammunition and weapons deliveries — with North Korea and Iran sending more ammo to Russia than the entire EU has to Ukraine….
But many Europeans are gloomy: Without action to back it up, the Elysée is increasingly alone in its optimism. Only one in 10 Europeans think Ukraine can win, according to a recent poll….
The question European leaders will need to answer: Are they prepared — and willing — to step in and make up for a flagging U.S.?.
A careful reader will notice that this is just a new version of the old “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” strategy, that the EU is at best intending to send more weapons when its and the US’ deliveries were not enough to overcome Russian forces. A new analysis, republished in TASS, dutifully recounts how Western weaponry in the famed summer counter-offensive greatly exceeded what Russia brought to that fight. Of course, there is the wee matter that the West provided almost nada in the way of air support, which is considered in the sort of doctrinal offensive that the US and NATO ginned up. And among other failings, they also appeared not to have contemplated Russia mining their too-clearly-announced line of attack, and then quickly mining behind the advancing forces, so they suffered more losses when retreating.
And the “do more of what so far has failed” not only does not acknowledge that Western weapons cupboards are looking mighty bare, but also, as Scott Ritter and Brian Berletic have pointed out, disparate EU weapons systems, like a multiplicity of tanks, creates a logistical nightmare, so the value of those arms is blunted by the complications in deploying and sustaining them. And there is the elephant in the room: that Ukraine has long ago run out of the ability to shanghai conflict-capable men, and has taken to press-ganging the unfit (in age and intellect) and is also conscripting women. The media has chosen to focus much more on shrinking weapons supplies, but has increasingly started to include more mentions of the manpower shortage, particularly of anyone with a modicum of experience.
However, second, there is a more immediate and serious cause for concern. The US and EU member states still keep moving up the escalation ladder with Russia as Project Ukraine founders. And a move that had seemed unduly provocative may now be under serious contemplation, as in having nominally Ukraine-piloted F-16s attack Russia, potentially out of NATO states. Jens Stoltenberg has also just announced that NATO is on board with Kiev attacking targets “outside Ukraine,” aka in Russia, so long as the target has been approved, presumably meaning colorably military. From the Financial Times:
Ukraine has the right to strike “Russian military targets outside Ukraine” in line with international law, the Nato secretary-general has said for the first time since the start of the full-scale war nearly two years ago.
Jens Stoltenberg earlier this week acknowledged that the use of western-supplied arms to strike targets in Russia had long been a point of contention among Kyiv’s allies, due to fears of escalating the conflict….
A Nato official confirmed to the Financial Times on Thursday that Stoltenberg said Kyiv had the right to self-defence, including by striking legitimate Russian military targets outside Ukraine….
In recent months Kyiv has stepped up strikes on military targets inside Russia with drones and long-range missiles, including an oil depot used by the Russian army near St Petersburg.
However, due to western sensitivities around attacks on Russian territory, Ukraine has only ever alluded to its responsibility. A spokesperson for Ukraine’s air defence forces, Yuriy Ignat, said that Ukraine “as a rule, does not comment”.
France and the UK, which have already supplied Kyiv with long-range missiles, have been cautious about endorsing such strikes for fear of escalation with Moscow.
Russia had said a long time ago that any use of foreign materiel or bases in an attack on Russia would amount to an act of war and Russia would respond.
But Russia has not treated this line as hard and fast. That is likely because that Ukraine and its NATO helpers have bothered with creating a veneer of deniability with these attacks, for instance depicting some as the doing of dissidents in Russia. It’s also close to conventional for major powers to send little green men in to “advise” pet state actors and as we know all too well from the Middle East, sponsor terrorists as long as we like their choice of enemies.
But Russia is well aware of transgressions. Precision targeting almost certainly means US/NATO assistance. Many of the weapons platforms, such at the Patriot, are difficult to master and thus are pretty certain to be operated in large measure by NATO “volunteers”.
Foreign mercenaries have been active in Ukraine. Russia has even been credited with striking gatherings of NATO “advisers.” In his recent Tucker Carlson interview, Putin mention that, in order, Polish, Georgian and US mercenaries are most active in Ukraine. Per Alexander Mercouris 9see at 1:16:15), Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu briefed Putin that the Ukraine war effort was being run by the West, out of Poland (presumably based on this session. Note I have been unable to find a transcript or an English subtitled version).
Let’s put this in context of the state of play. Many of the panicked reports describe that Ukraine really will run out of many critical weapons, at least relative to the level needed to prevent catastrophic losses, starting at the end of March. The most important is air defense, which is reportedly set to dry up then. This is far and away the biggest potential casualty: with Russia having total control of the skies, it could take out many more targets.
Mind you, experts point out that even if the US $61 billion were approved in early March, it’s not clear how much the US could deliver quickly given its depleted stocks. Zelensky want to acquire Patriot missiles, which are already in short supply.
But the $61 billion is also reported to be necessary to fund Ukraine’s much anticipated mass conscription, which has yet to be approved. Ukraine, which has its own currency, certainly could “print” if it wanted to to finance the initiative. One assumes the actual constraint is political: that without ongoing Western support, Ukraine would suffer mass upheaval as citizens rebelled against throwing yet more men and now even women into the meat grinder. The government apparently judges that there is not enough Banderite muscle to compel compliance in the absence of Western backing.
However, the Financial Times, consistent with earlier accounts, warns that the NATO forces are seriously contemplating at least two avenues of attack directly on Russia:
In Germany, lawmakers are seeking to persuade Chancellor Olaf Scholz to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, a long-standing demand from Kyiv as it could use the advanced German weapon to strike Russia’s supply lines.
The government’s parliamentary majority on Thursday was set to approve a motion asking Scholz to deliver “additional long-range weapons systems” to Kyiv, which many take to mean Taurus. The German missile has a slightly longer range than its French and British equivalents and is more sophisticated against reinforced structures, such as bunkers and bridges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted last year that Moscow could strike western-supplied F-16s outside Ukraine’s borders, which he said risked bringing Nato into a direct conflict with Russia. “This seriously risks dragging Nato further into this armed conflict,” Putin said in June.” The tanks are burning and the F-16s will burn just as well.”
The pink paper is being coy about F-16s. It is not just that they would be Western-supplied. They would almost certainly have to operate from airbases outside Ukraine, since the require pristine runaways and Russia could make sure there weren’t any. Poland appears to be too far from Russia (even Crimea) for the F-16 to launch attack anywhere that might raise Russia’s hackles. But Romania might be plausible for continuing to attack the Donbass. Readers?
Now it may be between the distance to Russia proper and the low likelihood that the F-16s would be effective even if they got that far that Russia is more worried in principle than practice. Scott Ritter has said that an F-16 would be visible to Russia upon takeoff and the odds of a pilot returning alive was 20%.
However, many commentators have taken note of the current uncomfortable resemblance of the current conflict to the runup to World War I, including a plethora of incompetent leaders and key officials. Many contend that no one wanted a big war (which is an exaggeration; there were interests that wanted a fight) and that conflict blew big due to a series of miscommunications and misreadings, plus rigid treaty obligations.
So Russia is no doubt mindful of the risk that the West could do something colossally stupid, as in mount a serious enough attack on Russia to protect its amour propre that Russia would be compelled to retaliate against an offending NATO member.
This is a long-winded set-up to an amendment to the view of the earlier post, which argued that Russia had ample reasons to move slowly even when the Ukraine military started imploding: the need to do first things first (fully capture and clear all the oblasts that joined Russia), see what the progress of economic and political collapse implied for the best next steps. and the lack of a real need to move rapidly.
We also stressed that the principle of “Do not make sudden moves around crazy people” also argued for a measured approach.
But if the NATO powers look determined to inflict damage on Russia, even if that would be unproductive to counterproductive, that could suggest a need to move faster, not necessarily in terms of territorial acquisition (occupying terrain is costly and would add to the Collective West freakout) but the pace of destruction of the Ukraine military. Heads exploding across NATO-sphere suggests Russia might want to take maximum advantage of the soon-to-open window of Ukraine being badly undersupplied, most of all on the critical air defense front. Simplicius gives a very good description of how Russia is now punching Ukraine from multiple directions, regularly catching Western planners off guard and disproving the claim that in the brave new world of ISR, surprise is impossible.
Simplicius and other point out that Russia has been concentrating forces, both in the Zaporzhizhia area and has been reversing the meager gains of the great Ukraine counteroffensive, and also has troops buildups not just near Kharkiv but also Sumy. The map-watchers so far think they are not big enough for a big arrow offensive.
But it does mean Russia would not find it hard to feed a great many more men into positions opposite the already-bucking line of contact. And a decisive collapse might persuade the West it had no good countermoves save licking its wounds and trying to foment terrorism within Russia, a la the IRA in England.
In other words, it seems possible that Russia could kick its operations into a higher gear than otherwise necessary to protect the West from itself.
https://twitter.com/e2dot7182818284/status/1761500933651898477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1761500933651898477%7Ctwgr%5E9fcb5fd5d0b5f93c8ed5bd47fde1c5e31b6bc975%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2024%2F02%2Fnato-freakout-over-crumbling-ukraine-military-poland-threatens-us-with-nuclear-development-if-no-aid-package.html
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »