NATO Flirting With War And Extinction In Ukraine

Russia has not changed its red line in demanding that NATO get out of Ukraine. While the Russians might agree to some security guarantees for Ukraine, it is hard to see how such guarantees have trading value. Would the US go to war with Russia for Ukraine?

The only solid and proven military force in NATO is the United States. But the US force is mainly expeditionary and small, no match for a Russian land army. If anyone wants to see what happens to expeditionary armies, look at Dunkir .

The American advantage is in tactical aviation. But again US pilots would have to operate in a dense area denial environment where Russian air defenses could reduce US tactical aviation effectiveness. It is quite true that the US has stealth but the Russians have been working on ways to counter US stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35.

No one can say for sure how far along Russia is on being able to target American stealth platforms but Russian strategic defenses are using UHF and L band radars to make sure they are neither surprised nor incapable of handling stealth threats.

That explains why two Russian
strategic radar sites were targeted
by drones in the past week. Was the attack on Russia's strategic radar assets a preparation for the introduction of US strategic bombers and tactical aviation into the Ukraine war?

The“new” US policy on strikes inside Russian territory appears to be“limited” to counter-battery strikes in the Kharkov region, meaning inside Russian territory around Belgorod, a Russian city that has already been targeted by Ukrainian artillery and drone strikes. The other significant limitation is that the US will not allow ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russian territory (excluding Crimea which the Russians regard as their territory).

The Russians say that the US policy is largely meaningless because US and NATO weapons are already being used on Russia's territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin,
speaking in Tashkent , said that the US and NATO are manning the long-range weapons and providing target intelligence for them, so the“new” policy is not new at all.

Striking deep in Russia sounds like an attractive military option but it is far from clear such attacks can change the course of the war in Ukraine. The best option Ukraine has in trying to push back the Russians is the use of drones, most of which are Chinese in origin and modified by Ukraine to carry explosive ordnance, mainly RPG-7 warheads.

These can kill a tank or armored vehicle, or even the occasional command center or air defense radar. Ukraine has been firing them in the thousands and they are moderately effective.

It is noteworthy that the Chinese keep selling them to the Ukrainians even though their friend and ally is Russia. It is also interesting that the Russians say nothing about it. Yet it seems that the fastest way for Russia to end the Ukraine war would be to stop the supply of drones.

There are a number of Chinese drone companies but the biggest and most important is DJI (Da Jiang Innovations), which controls 70-80% of the world market. There also are drone suppliers in Europe and the United States but they do not produce in high volume.

The change in US policy is encouraged by many of the NATO countries with some notable exceptions. Hungary, which is against NATO involvement in Ukraine, opposes deep strikes in Russian territory.

More relevantly,
Italy has come out against
the idea.
The
Germans , for their part and for what it is worth, say they support deep strikes but so far at least will not supply Taurus missiles, their only deep strike cruise missile weapon.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily ReportStart your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly ReportA weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

It is hard to say what the Russians will do beyond what they are already doing. The new policy, unfortunately, commits NATO to a war with Russia and approaches a declaration of war against Russia.

This means that the Russians could retaliate and some in Russia are known to be pushing for that.
Doing so would instantly expand the war to Europe, a policy shift Putin has resisted.

The likely result of all this is that the Ukraine war will continue. NATO will take even more losses, including NATO soldiers. Behind the scenes, plans to use air power or NATO ground forces are unlikely to be implemented given the dire consequences for Europe. NATO's flirtation with a bigger war is horribly risky, as serious thinkers in Europe and the United States realize.

Spooking the Russians to back off by attacking Russian territory or sending in French soldiers will not work as the
Russians have already priced in that reality and are plowing ahead with the war in Ukraine.
Furthermore, NATO's failure to negotiate over Ukraine means the bleeding out of NATO's already limited capabilities will continue.

Some NATO states may decide they need to look elsewhere for security. Is NATO flirting with extinction?

Stephen Bryen served as staff director of the Near East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and as a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy.

This article was first published on his
Weapons and Strategy
Substack and is republished with permission.