Dave Patterson
Liberty Nation
Just two days after President Joe Biden removed the limitations on Ukraine’s use of long-range tactical missiles, Kyiv launched six ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) into Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had requested permission to hit military locations inside Russia with these weapons for almost a year. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin reduced the threshold for his country to employ nuclear weapons.
Putin Reduces Threshold for Using Nuclear Weapons
When Biden relented and permitted the use of longer-range missiles, the White House said the decision was a response to the 11,000 North Korean combat forces joining Moscow’s troops to win back lost real estate in the Kursk Oblast. The reversal of US policy was surprising since the reason for the prohibition was that Ukraine striking inside Russia would escalate the conflict. “The United States previously limited Ukraine to using the Army Tactical Missile System within its own territory out of concern, in part, that Russia could respond with force against US and allies’ interests beyond Ukraine,” a prominent Washington, DC, news source speculated.
Nonetheless, Putin’s reaction was not long in coming. On Nov 19, the Kremlin leader signed a revised nuclear deterrence doctrine for the use of its atomic weapons. The New York Times explained:
“Asked whether Russia could respond with nuclear weapons to such [long-range missile] strikes Dmitri S. Peskov, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, repeated the new doctrine’s language that Russia ‘reserves the right’ to use such weapons to respond to a conventional-weapons attack that creates a ‘critical threat’ to its ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity.’”
The United States, France, and the UK, all nuclear-capable, assisting Ukraine, opened the aperture of acceptable rationale for Russia to activate its nuclear arsenal. “The new doctrine asserts that Russia could use nuclear arms in the event of an attack by a nation backed by a nuclear power,” the NYT reported.
According to an Associated Press description of the Kremlin’s new “Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence,” it now includes possession by an adversary of atomic weapons that could attack Russia, and military exercises close to the Russian border are justification for Moscow to deploy nuclear weapons. It also includes potential attacks against its ally Belarus with conventional weapons as a reason for Russia to retaliate with nukes.
In the past, common wisdom maintained that if belligerents kept the level of combat to conventional weapons, nuclear weapons would not be utilized. However, Putin has warned, even before releasing the revised nuclear doctrine, that the use of long-range missiles supplied by the West to attack Russia would constitute war. Regarding Ukraine employing ATACMS inside Russia, “Asked … if such a Ukrainian attack could potentially trigger a nuclear response, Peskov answered affirmatively,” the AP reported. Also concerning is what most nations in the nuclear club believe to be a foundational principle of nuclear deterrence, “compliance with international obligations in the field of arms control” was previously part of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The concept is missing in the latest version.
New Nuclear Doctrine Complicates Trump’s Deterrence Policy
What this means for US national security policy going forward is debatable. Many believe it is a slippery slope to World War III. The consensus is that the introduction of ATACMS into the Ukraine conflict will not result in the use of nuclear weapons by Russia and a response in kind by the United States and NATO. However, most observers believe the current elevated tensions in the Ukraine-Russia war will significantly impact the decision-making of President-elect Donald Trump, waiting in the wings.
Two schools of thought on the Kyiv-Moscow problem facing the incoming Trump administration: The first is that the use of long-range missiles and the reaction inside Russia will provide Trump a stronger hand in negotiating a solution to the fighting with both sides.
On the other hand, the second line of thinking is that the Biden administration has muddied the waters, undermining Trump’s negotiating position. A Just the News report makes a compelling argument. It explained that former National Security Chief of Staff Fred Fleitz believed that Biden was against Ukraine using “US-made missiles to strike deep inside Russia before the election, and his lame-duck decision this weekend to authorize it now smacks of an effort to thwart Trump’s effort to create a ceasefire and peace deal.”
The more apt criticism is that Biden authorizing Kyiv to employ the long-range capability of ATACMS now is an example of US incrementalism, which has devastated the Ukraine war effort. Every delivery of Western weaponry to help the Ukrainians has been months after requested and needed.
However, whichever line of reasoning prevails, it’s safe to say that Trump and his national security team will have their work cut out on day one.
This article was originally published by Liberty Nation News.
