Wider European war on the horizon – Asia Times

The risk of the conflict in Ukraine spreading to Europe is growing. &nbsp, The risk of a German battle has never been so great. &nbsp,

The common consensus among military experts is that Ukraine is gradually, but inevitably, losing the war against Russia. But what does that imply?

On the surface, Ukraine does not have enough soldiers to fight the Russians for very long. Because of the large number of casualties, battles are now typically referred to as “meat grinders,” and the fire level for Ukraine is in the thousands per day. &nbsp,

Ukraine has a nearly no supply of unrestrictedly trained fighting people compared to Russia, which is estimated to be around half a million.

Also therefore, Russia’s finish- game strategy is dark. Russians occasionally claim to want to establish a “buffer area” to shield Soviet territory from attack. &nbsp,

A cushion area cannot be established due to the introduction of long-range nuclear and cruise missiles unless it almost borders the Dnieper River. Even then, a cache area does not guard Zaporizhzhia&nbsp, or Crimea.

NATO is then introducing F- 16s to Ukraine, which reportedly may run from Italian airports. They will be equipped with extended- range JASSM boat missiles and AIM- 120 atmosphere- to- weather missiles. &nbsp,

Will Russia need to end their Italian air base operations, or does NATO reject the idea of using them to launch F-16 sorties, which some people believe will target Crimea due to location?

Crimea is extremely- delicate to Russia. Lately, Ukraine has launched big salvos of lengthy- range missiles at Crimean targets including airfields and harbors, &nbsp, particularly at Sevastopol. It is believed it did immediately, after again, attempt&nbsp, to kill the Kerch gate.

The majority of these missiles were provided by NATO ( mostly American ), and all of them were given targets based on the location provided by NATO. &nbsp,

NATO uses long-range radars, satellites, and spy planes to pinpoint the exact locations for its Russian clients. The Russians, depending on heat defenses to try and patient off most of the injury, have kept very quiet about these assaults.

Because Ukraine lacks the earth forces required to fight a battle in Crimea, problems have no real military repercussions. The goal is to embarrass the Russians, but it’s possible the opposite will happen. &nbsp,

As the stress is stepped up, Russia can be expected to react with terrible power, either by attacking Kharkiv, Odesa or Kiev, or some or all of the above.

Kiev does not have enough surviving air threats to shield its cities from destruction, and Russia has more long-range rockets than NATO can provide. What other strategy does NATO have besides punishing Russia as Ukraine loses its battle?

NATO appears to be trying to persuade the Russians that they will give a very high price for their defeat of Ukraine. Some in NATO may think that stress will develop inside Russia to back off and prevent their latest offensive&nbsp, operations, sometimes even get a peace.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that Russia can be persuaded to end its combat against Ukraine or to consider starting a ceasefire. Despite a lot of talk about a ceasefire, it would work in Ukraine’s favor, not Russia’s.

By sending Russian warships and nuclear submarines to Cuba, the Russians have sent their own message to Washington.

Whether Washington will “get it” is not clear. In reality, everything seems to point in the opposite direction: Russia is getting more and more hostile with the attacks on Crimea and its territory. &nbsp,

The actual pressure is being put on the Russian leadership to significantly increase attacks on Ukrainian targets. These ideas were exchanged in a number of private meetings this month at the St. Petersburg economic summit. &nbsp,

Putin did not say it out loud; at least not at the highest level of Russian leadership. The next level was expressing its anger and frustration and aimed to attack NATO and the Ukrainians.

Some European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, may choose to wage a larger war to try to influence public opinion in their favor, risk losing their political support at home. &nbsp,

Sending troops and providing fighter jets and other weapons might be seen as intentionally aiming for a wider, European war. Moreover, Biden may be trying to start a war in Europe and save his sluggish political fortunes by using the US’s F-16 bases in Romania.

( Or perhaps Biden is unaware of it, but his protégés have developed a “new” strategy to protect their boss’s hide. )

Because NATO’s defenses are embarrassingly thin, these ideas are inherently risky. In an effort to stay in power, ribbing the alliance and Europe’s future is, in theory, a sin and, if true, criminal. &nbsp,

There is also no evidence that the general public will back a bigger war. In fact, it is more likely that there will be a pent-up anti-war sentiment in Europe, both from the right and left, and probably also from the center.

NATO is already dangerously close to becoming an aggressor alliance, which could lead to its dissolution and rejection.

Stephen&nbsp, Bryen is senior correspondent at Asia Times. He also served as the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff director and its deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp,

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