NATO flirting with war and extinction in Ukraine – Asia Times

NATO flirting with war and extinction in Ukraine - Asia Times

NATO is flirting with conflict and extinction. France is now “officially” &nbsp, sending troops to Ukraine&nbsp, ( they have been there for some time ) and NATO countries are demanding strikes deep inside Russia.

However, the US&nbsp, has quietly made&nbsp, a “policy change” that fairly falls short of what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wanted but opens the door to strong hits by the US on Russian place.

US Secretary of State&nbsp, Antony Blinken says&nbsp, that the US heavy attack license is “misinformation” but he did not deny the shift in US plan. He claims it is Russian propaganda but&nbsp, the information came from Washington&nbsp, and not from Russia.

What is going on? Ukraine is on the&nbsp, brink of collapse. The Russian military has a small army, which only gets worse as more soldiers are deployed. According to the Russians, Ukraine&nbsp, lost 35, 000 men in May&nbsp, (killed and wounded ). Ukraine may replace the soldiers who have been lost, and the current driven hiring plan cannot replace trained personnel.

Additionally, there are stories that Russia might drastically increase its own army size on-the-front. Some think that could be reinforcing the ongoing&nbsp, Kharkov- focused activity. In the Sumy location, some people are imagining a fresh battlefields. Still others believe that the Russians will soon expand their business along the lease, expanding their footprint, and eventually acquiring Chasiv Yar.

NATO officials fear Ukraine’s decline. They have little choice but to save Ukraine while guessing what the Russians will do next. NATO military being enshrined in a sizable number is not a option. Only that this simply implies that Europe will soon be filled with brain carriers. &nbsp, &nbsp,

NATO is unwilling to engage in negotiations with Russia. That includes President Joe Biden, who is concerned about entering the upcoming votes having lost Afghanistan and Ukraine. Any offer with the Russians now would mean big concessions, not only on place but about Ukraine’s future. &nbsp,

Russia’s position on requesting NATO leave Ukraine has not changed. It’s difficult to understand how such offers have a trading price, despite the fact that the Russians may agree to some security assures for Ukraine. &nbsp, May the US go to war with Russia for Ukraine? &nbsp, &nbsp,

The United States is the only credible and tested military power in NATO. However, a Russian land army cannot compete with a US force that is primarily military and little. If someone wants to see what happens to military forces, &nbsp, glance at Dunkirk.

Dunkirk 26- 29 May 1940&nbsp, – American forces line up on the beach at Dunkirk to receive removal.

The British benefit is in military aviation. However, once more, US pilots would have to work in a densely denialous environment where Russian weather defenses may weaken US military aircraft. Although it is true that the US has cunning, Russians have been developing strategies to combat US stealth fighters like the F-35 and the F-22. &nbsp,

No one can tell for certain how far along Russia is in terms of capturing American secrecy platforms, but Russian tactical threats are using UHF and L group radars to ensure they are neither surprised nor capable of retaliating against stealth threats. &nbsp,

That explains why two Russian&nbsp, proper radar places were targeted&nbsp, by robots in the past year. Was the US’s attack on Russia’s corporate radar assets a step in the direction of US tactical bombers and military aviation?

The “new” US scheme on strikes inside Belarusian territory appears to be “limited” to store power strikes in the Kharkov place, which also applies to those carried out inside Russian country around Belgorod, a Russian town that has already been targeted by Ukrainian artillery and drone strikes. The US will not permit ATACMS missile launches into Russian territory ( excluding Crimea, which the Russians consider to be their own territory ), which is another important limitation.

Russians claim that US policy has no purpose because Russian territory already uses US and NATO weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin, &nbsp, 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.

Although it seems tempting to use striking force in Russia, it is not entirely clear that such attacks will alter the Ukrainian conflict. The use of drones, the majority of which are Chinese in origin and were modified by Ukraine to carry explosives, most notably RPG- 7 warheads, is the best strategy for provoking Russia.

A tank, armored vehicle, or even sporadic command centers or air defense radar can be killed by these. They have been reportedly fired in the thousands, and they are only moderately effective.

Even though Russia is their friend and ally, the Chinese continue to sell them to the Ukrainians. The lack of wording among the Russians is also intriguing. The only thing that seems to be in order for Russia to put an end to the conflict in Ukraine would be to stop the supply of drones. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Drone with PG- 7VL warhead.

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. In Europe and the United States, drone suppliers are available, but they do not produce in large numbers.

Many NATO member states support the change in US policy, with a few notable exceptions. Hungary, which is against NATO involvement in Ukraine, opposes deep strikes in Russian territory.

More relevantly, &nbsp, Italy has come out against&nbsp, the idea. &nbsp, The&nbsp, 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.

Beyond what they are already doing, it’s difficult to say what the Russians will do. The new policy, unfortunately, commits NATO to a war with Russia and approaches a declaration of war against Russia. &nbsp,

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

The outcome of all of this is likely to be a continuation of the Ukraine war. NATO will take even more losses, including NATO soldiers. Given the negative effects that will befall Europe, plans to use NATO ground forces or air power are unlikely to be implemented behind the scenes. As serious thinkers in Europe and the United States are aware, NATO’s flirtation with a bigger war is horribly risky. &nbsp,

Spooking the Russians by attacking Russian territory or dispatching French soldiers will not work because the Russians have already figured out how to proceed with the Ukrainian conflict and have already pushed the boundaries of that reality. &nbsp, Furthermore, NATO’s failure to negotiate over Ukraine means the bleeding out of NATO’s already limited capabilities will continue.

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

Stephen Bryen served as the Near East Subcommittee of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee&nbsp and as the deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp,

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