The recent escalation in Ukraine has seen warnings of World War Three from independent and mainstream media commentators, with the former Ukrainian General Zaluzhny claiming it has already broken out.
When in the Course of ...
Best Price: $4.29
Buy New $19.07
(as of 05:06 UTC - Details)
“I believe that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun,” said the former commander of Ukraine’s military, in remarks published by Politico on November 21st.
Yet his analysis relies on the dubious claim that Russia is already fielding “North Korean troops” and using Iranian missiles. Zaluzhny, as a Ukrainian war leader, has an obvious interest in promoting a war which drags the US-led NATO in on his side.
The wider concern is not what the Russians have been doing, but what they will do next, in the face of repeated provocations from a liberal global order fighting for its life.
‘This could go nuclear,’ warns Colonel Macgregor
Though Russia has a second-strike nuclear doctrine, meaning it says it will only respond to and never initiate a nuclear attack, the recent escalation has been said to bring the world closer to nuclear war than it has ever been, according to retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor.
Former British Intelligence officer Alastair Crooke’s opinion is that the West has failed to recognize the significance of the new Russian weapon system.
The New York Times, in its November 23 report, appears to confirm Crooke’s view, as it described the brinkmanship as a series of “tit for tat” strikes, saying only that the Russians have responded with a “test-fired intermediate-range missile” in response to the authorization of long-range strikes into Russia using NATO supplied and guided ATACMS (U.S.) and Storm Shadow cruise missiles (provided by the U.K).
Yet Crooke offered more nuance, saying the new Russian system had “checkmated” the Western escalation, led largely by the U.K. government.
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter gave a detailed account of the new missile, noting its hypersonic capability made it impossible to counter, and that it could also carry a nuclear payload in future.
Called “Oreshnik,” the medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) had never been seen before, and its maiden mission was described in a video address given by President Vladimir Putin, following its use in a strike in Ukraine.
The main points of Putin’s statements at the session of the CSTO Collective Security Council:
About “Oreshnik” and other Russian weapons:
▪️ In the event of a massive use of Oreshnik missiles in one strike, its power will be comparable to the use of nuclear weapons.
▪️ Russia… pic.twitter.com/imTBgruxvI
— — GEROMAN — time will tell – — (@GeromanAT) November 28, 2024
Ritter has stressed, along with others, that the new Russian missile is not simply another bomb but changes the balance of power. Russia can now attack and destroy any target it chooses with a non-nuclear weapon which cannot be stopped and has the impact of an in-theater, or small, nuclear bomb without the accompanying radiation harm.
Only escalation remaining is nuclear war
How did they respond to Russia’s demonstration? The next day, more U.S.-supplied ATACMs were fired into Russia. The U.K. will send “dozens more” Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine and the French have said they permit Ukraine to use their SCALP cruise missiles to launch attacks into Russia, too.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has repeatedly stressed that Russia wishes to avoid a nuclear war, and that its military doctrine states it will use them only in response to a nuclear attack.
Yet a revision to this nuclear doctrine appeared days after U.S. President Joe Biden finally gave permission for the use of NATO weapons to strike deep into Russia.
This clause, announced in September but made official last week, states that Russia reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons to a strike made on its territory by “[a] non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power.”
Ukraine, of course, answers this description. Yet this warning from Russia has been dismissed as “bluff and bluster.”
After the new Russian nuclear doctrine was proposed in September, the Carnegie Institute argued in October that the West can continue to pursue aggression “below that threshold,” as it maintained the U.S. could go on “trying to nudge Russia’s red lines as carefully as possible.”
Why do U.S. and NATO war leaders believe this is wise? According to “the world’s leading experts on Russia and the wider region” at Carnegie, “The war has shown that Russia does not have a sufficient arsenal of high-precision conventional weapons to mitigate many of the threats to it, or to break the resistance of a country as large as Ukraine.”
The Second World War
Buy New $12.99
(as of 02:01 UTC - Details)
So, what is a threat? “Threats form where there is a combination of will and capability,” as expert Dr. Sumantra Maitra has pointed out.
With the demonstration of its new capability, Russian threats have been replaced with a promise. The new Oreshnik missile breaks the Western strategy in this war entirely. Carnegie explained how this strategy began.
“Washington… began to test the red lines that Moscow had initially proclaimed. Russia continued to threaten the West with a high price for intervention in the war, but in practice there was little it [Russia] could do…”
As Responsible Statecraft’s Ian Proud surmised, the game has changed – and the West cannot – or will not – see this.
Western commentators have noted with derision that many Russian “red lines” have been crossed in the past, to no serious effect. This dismissive attitude is being applied to what is suggested to be Putin’s “final warning” by Crooke, Macgregor, Larry Wilkerson, Ritter and others.
The danger of escalation to nuclear war is clear and present, they say. Why is this happening now – and what is the likelihood it will result in Armageddon?
