US Ups the Ante: Are We Indeed Headed Into WWIII and What Can Save Us?
by Gilbert Doctorow Posted on September 13, 2022
The UK and Commonwealth may be mourning the passing of
Queen Elizabeth II yesterday. I am in mourning as well, but for a very
different reason: the gathering in the Ramstein air base in Germany yesterday
reshuffled the deck on Western military and financial assistance to Ukraine,
raising contributions to the ongoing holy crusade against Russia from still
more nations and adding new, still more advanced precision strike weapons to
the mix of deliveries to Kiev. It was an open summons to the Kremlin to
escalate in turn, as were the test firing the same day of a new intercontinental
rocket, the Minuteman III, from Vandenberg air base in California and the
unannounced visit to Kiev yesterday of not only Secretary of State Antony
Blinken, who was featured in Western media accounts, but also other top
officials of the Biden administration. The most notorious member of this
delegation was surely Blinken’s deputy, Victoria Nuland, who had stage-managed
the February 2014 coup that put in power in Kiev the Russia-hating regime that
Zelensky now heads.
The Russians may be compelled to take the bait due to
the course of military action on the ground. As now becomes clear, they have
just suffered some losses in very heavy ground and artillery fighting these
past few days around Kharkiv. The Ukrainian gains were facilitated by the advanced
weaponry recently arrived from NATO countries, by the targeting data they are
receiving from the U.S., and by the off-stage tactical direction from NATO
officers. By ‘take the bait,’ I mean the Russians may escalate to an all-out war
on Ukraine. This question figured prominently in yesterday’s major news and
political talk show programs on Russian state television. I will go into these
matters in some detail below.
Regrettably, all of the foregoing also obliges me to
revisit the critique I published a couple of
weeks ago on the latest essay in Foreign
Affairs magazine by John Mearsheimer. His overarching message on the
dangers of our stumbling into a nuclear war is better substantiated by the
latest developments, even though I believe that Mearsheimer failed to identify
the several successive steps that lie ahead before we find ourselves in such a
war. Mearsheimer oversimplified Russian options to deal with setbacks on the
ground. This also will be a central issue in my narrative below.
Finally, in this essay I will direct attention to the
second dimension of the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the entire
Collective West: the economic war being waged on the Russian Federation via
sanctions, which now far outnumber those directed against any other country on
earth. This war, as I will argue, is going well for the Russians. More
importantly for us all, it is the sole area in which the peoples of Europe may
have a say in putting an end to the mad policies being pursued by their
national governments under the direct pressure of Washington.
Over the past ten days, we have witnessed the start of
the Ukrainian counter-offensive which was preceded by so much anticipation in
Western media. A reversal of Russian fortunes in the war was predicted, leading
to the stalemate or outright defeat for Russia which Mearsheimer and some other
analysts in the US foreign policy community feared would trigger a nuclear
response from the Kremlin.
In fact, the Ukrainian counteroffensive got off to a
very bad start. It opened in the south, in the Kherson region. Kherson, which
is predominantly Russian-speaking, was the first major Ukrainian city to fall
to the Russians and it has strategic importance for ensuring Russian domination
of the Black Sea littoral. However, the first results of the Ukrainian attacks
there were disastrous for the Ukrainian armed forces. It soon was obvious that
they had deployed new recruits who had little or no military experience. The
infantry attacked across open terrain where they were easily destroyed in vast
numbers by the Russian defenders of Kherson. I have heard the figure of 5,000
Ukrainian casualties in the Kherson counter-offensive. Obviously, the Russians
were jubilant, though there were reports of some Ukrainian reservists being
withdrawn from the field of action for redeployment elsewhere.
What followed was something the Russians evidently did
not expect, namely a well-prepared and implemented assault on their positions
around the northeastern city of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city. Kharkiv
was briefly surrounded by Russian forces at the start of the war, but was left
in relative peace as the Russians refocused their strategy on taking the Donbas
and avoiding major urban warfare except in one place, Mariupol. Exactly what
the Russian game plan has been was recently explained in a remarkable paper published
by a certain ‘Marinus’ in the Marine Corps Gazette.
A couple of days ago I picked up the following amidst
the chatter of panelists on Evening with Vladimir Solovyov: “yes,
we made some mistakes, but it is inevitable in a war that mistakes are made.”
From the latest news on the apparent loss of Balakliya and surrounding
villages on the outskirts of Kharkiv, we can see that the Ukrainian tactics
were precisely those which Russia had been using so effectively against them from
day one of the ‘special military operation,’ namely a feint in one war zone
followed by an all-out attack on a very different region. Of course, the ‘feint’
around Kherson, if that is what it was, entailed the cynical sacrifice of
thousands of young and not-so-young Ukrainian foot soldiers. But the resultant
distraction prevented the Russians from bringing up sufficient manpower to
successfully defend their positions around Kharkiv, which include the
strategically important city of Izyum.
Izyum is close to the Russian-Ukrainian border
southeast of Kharkiv and is a significant logistical base for munitions and weaponry
that are sent onward to support the Donbas operation. The latest information on
the Russian side appears to be that the Russians have now dispatched large
numbers of reservists to this area to hold their positions. They also speak of
intense artillery duels. We may well assume that both sides have experienced the heavy loss of life. As yet, the outcome is unforeseeable. Meanwhile, Russian
war correspondents on the ground in Donetsk insist that the Russian advance
towards Slavyansk, in the center of the former Donetsk oblast, is continuing
without pause, which suggests that the strikes on their munitions stores
claimed by the Ukrainians have not been totally effective. If Slavyansk is
taken in the coming few weeks, then Russia will quickly assume control of the
entire territory of the Donbas.
In last night’s talk show program, host Vladimir
Solovyov said that this latest push in the Ukrainian counteroffensive was timed
to coincide with the gathering at the Ramstein air base, Germany of top
officials from NATO and other allies under the direction of the visiting US
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. If the Ukrainian efforts were failing in the
field, then the cry would go up: we must provide them with more weapons and
training. And if the Ukrainian efforts in the counteroffensive were succeeding,
those in attendance at Ramstein would hear exactly the same appeal to aid Kiev.
Though Evening with Solovyov, on air from
about 23.00 Moscow time, offered viewers some few minutes of video recordings
from the opening of the Ramstein gathering, far more complete coverage was
provided to Russian audiences a few hours earlier by the afternoon news
show Sixty Minutes. Here, nearly half an hour on air was given over
to lengthy excerpts from CNN and other US and European mainstream television
reporting about Ramstein. Host Yevgeni Popov read the Russian translation of
the various Western news bulletins. His presentation clearly sought to
dramatize the threat and set off alarm bells.
For his part, Vladimir Solovyov went beyond the presentation of the threat posed by the United States and its allies to the analysis of Russia’s possible response. He spoke at length, and we may assume
that what he was saying had the direct approval of the Kremlin, because his
guests, who are further removed from Power than he is, were, for the most part,
allowed only to talk blather, such as the critique by one panelist of a recent
pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia article in The New York Review of Books by
Yale professor Timothy Snyder, who counts for nothing in the big strategic
issues Russia faces today.
So, what did Solovyov have to say? First, Ramstein marked a new stage in the war, because of the more threatening nature
of the weapons systems announced for delivery, such as missiles with an accuracy
of 1 to 2 meters when fired from distances of 20 or 30 kilometers thanks to
their GPS-guided flight, in contrast to the laser-guided missiles delivered to
Ukraine up till now. In the same category, there are weapons designed to
destroy the Russians’ radar systems used for directing artillery fire. Second,
that Ramstein marked the further expansion of the coalition or holy crusade
waging war on Russia. Third, in effect, this is no longer a proxy war but a
real direct war with NATO and should be prosecuted with the appropriate mustering
of all resources at home and abroad.
Said Solovyov, Russia should throw off constraints and
destroy the Ukrainian dual-use infrastructure which makes it possible to move
Western weapons across the country to the front. The railway system, the
bridges, and the electricity generating stations all should become fair targets.
Moreover, Kiev should no longer be spared missile strikes and destruction of
the ministries and presidential apparatus responsible for the prosecution of the
war. I note that these ideas were aired on the Solovyov program more than a
month ago but then disappeared from view while the Russians were making great
gains on the ground. The latest setbacks and the new risks associated with the
Western policies set out at Ramstein bring them to the surface again.
Solovyov also argued that Russia should now use Ukraine its own most advanced weapons that have similar characteristics to what
NATO is delivering to the other side. As a sub-point, Russia should consider
neutralizing in one way or another the GPS guidance for US weapons. Of course,
if this means destroying or blinding the respective US satellites, that would
mean crossing a well-known US red line or casus belli.
Next, in the new circumstances, Russia should abandon
its go-it-alone policy and actively seek complementary weapons systems from
previously untouchable countries, such as Iran and North Korea. Procurements from
both have till now been minimal. On this issue, a couple of panelists with
military expertise were allowed to explain that both these countries have
sophisticated and proven weapons that could greatly assist Russia’s war effort.
Iran has unbeatable drones which carry hefty explosive charges and have proven
their worth in operations that are unmentionable on public television. And
North Korea has very effective tanks and highly portable field artillery which
are both fully compatible with Russian military practice because the designs
were based on Chinese weapons, which in turn were copies of Russia’s own. These
weapons also have shown their worth in the hands of unnamed purchasers in the
Middle East. Moreover, North Korea has a vast store of munitions fully
compatible with Russian artillery. It was also mentioned in passing that
insofar as Kiev has mobilized many Western mercenaries and covert NATO officers in the field, Russia should also recruit from abroad, for example, whole
brigades from North Korea available for hire.
If any of these ideas put out by Solovyov last night
are indeed implemented by the Kremlin, then the present confrontation in and
over Ukraine will truly become globalized, and we have the outlines of what may
be called World War III. However, I note that the use of nuclear weapons,
tactical or otherwise, does not figure at all in the set of options that
official Moscow discusses in relation to the challenges it faces in its Ukraine
operation. Such a possibility would arise only if the NATO forces being sent to
the EU’s ‘front line states’ grew in number by several times those presently
assigned and appeared to be preparing to invade Russia.
Before Ramstein, before the news of Ukrainian
successes on the ground in the Kharkiv sector, I had plans to write about a
very different development this past week that coincided with a different
calendar: the end of summer vacations and the return to work of our national
governments. With the return, our presidents and prime ministers would finally have
to address the critical state of the European economies, which are facing the
highest inflation rates in decades and an energy crisis brought about by the
sanctions on Russian hydrocarbons. Speculation was rife on what exactly they
would do.
I was particularly struck by several articles in the 7
September edition of The Financial Times and planned to
comment on them.
For months now, the FT has been the
voice of Number 10, Downing Street, at the vanguard of the Western crusade to
crush Russia. Their editorial board has consistently backed every proposal for
sanctions against Russia, however hare-brained. And yet on the 7th their
journalists ran away with the show and cast doubt on the basic assumptions held
by their bosses. One article by Derek Brower in the “FT Energy Source”
newsletter has the self-explanatory title “The price cap idea that could worsen
the energy crisis.” As we saw today, Brower’s concern was misplaced: finally,
the EU could not agree on a price cap policy. This notion, promoted from the United
States by none other than the Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, is in
full contradiction with the practices of the global hydrocarbon market, as even
a few EU leaders understood, depriving the initiators of the Baltic States of
their hoped-for consensus.
Another article of the 7th in FT, by
Valentina Pop, Europe Express Editor, analyzed quickly and competently the
problems facing European policy-makers in their bid to alleviate the pain to
households and industry that the latest electricity and heating bills would
otherwise present, given that they are several times higher than just a year
ago and are unaffordable by large swathes of the population. Pop identified the
key issue thus: how to provide aid quickly to those most in need given the constraints
and resources available to the various government bureaucracies: “Some capitals
will take many months in determining which households require help” she says.
Of course, ‘many months’ of patience in the broad population will not be there.
But the most surprising article in this collection
from the 7th was in the “Opinion Lex” section of the paper which was nominally
about how Russian banks have weathered the storm that broke out when the EU
sanctions on their industry first were laid down shortly after the start of
Russia’s ‘special military operation.’ Indeed, VTB and other major Russian
banks have returned to profitability despite it all. The author finds that
‘sanctions are biting less than western politicians hoped.’ Not only did the
expected banking crisis not materialize, but the ruble is at five-year peaks
and inflation is falling. Moreover, the official Russian financial data behind
these generalizations is said to be sound by independent and trustworthy market
observers. The key conclusions are saved for last: “Russia has shown it can
bear the pain of western sanctions. Western Europe must endure reprisals as
robustly, or concede a historic defeat.” The ‘reprisals’ in question are the
complete shutdown of Russian gas deliveries through Nord Stream I until Europe
lifts its sanctions.
It is interesting that even the Opinion article by
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg published on the 7th in FT carries
the following grim warning: “We face a difficult six months, with the threat of
energy cuts, disruptions and perhaps even civil unrest.’ [emphasis mine]
To be sure, here and there in Europe, there are a few
clever administrators who find promising solutions to the pending crisis of
energy bills. On her first day in office, Britain’s new Prime Minister Liz
Truss announced one such solution: to immediately freeze the maximum energy
bill per household at the present level of 2500 pounds sterling per year and
then to turn around and agree with the power companies a subsidy for them to
cover their losses.
This is fine for nipping in the bud possible ‘civil
unrest.’ But the question remains how Britain will finance the estimated 150
billion pounds this will cost in the first year alone. If a similar solution
were approved in the EU, the overall cost would surely approach the 800 billion
euros of assistance borrowed to cover losses attributable to the Covid pandemic
a year ago. But whereas the Covid aid was financed by collective borrowing of
the EU, no such solidarity is likely to deal with the energy crisis, given that
Germany, the Netherlands, and other northern Member States oppose this becoming
a general practice and will apply a veto. The British solution, however clever
it may be, will hardly be available to many countries in the EU on their own
given their high state indebtedness.
Then there is the second question of what to do to
assist the industry. Failure to give the industry proper relief will result in company
closures and rampant unemployment, which finally also sparks political protest.
In any case, such solutions do not deal with the knock-on effects of vastly
increased government borrowing to finance the energy subsidies, something which
in the best of times always reduces capital available for other government
services and capital available to private businesses for investment and job creation.
These various problems in dealing with the energy
crisis that Europe created for itself by imposing sanctions on Russia may well
be intractable and may well lead to spontaneous protests in a number of
European countries this fall.
There is no antiwar movement on the Old Continent to
speak of. So popular protests over the ‘heat or eat dilemma being imposed by
the chanceries on the people without anything resembling public debate may be
the salvation of us all if they induce war-mongering politicians to resign.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political
analyst. His latest book is Does Russia Have a Future? Reprinted with permission from his blog.
© Gilbert
Doctorow, 2022
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario