Russia threatens nuclear war against Western military buildup in Ukraine

by

The Ukraine War enters its 48th week with a new turning point in the conflict between Russia, which invaded the neighboring country last February, and the West, which has militarily supported Kiev’s efforts to resist aggression.

This Thursday (19), on the eve of the meeting in which Ukrainian allies promise a robust package of new weapons that may include war tanks that have not been sent to the conflict so far, Russia reacted to the movement by threatening the use of its rhetorical atomic bomb: nuclear weapons really.

Kremlin hard-line representative, Dmitri Medvedev, who presided the country on behalf of Vladimir Putin from 2008 to 2012, went to Telegram to comment on the meeting this Friday (20) of the group of 50 countries led by NATO forces (Western military alliance) at the American base in Ramstein, Germany.

“Underdeveloped political balladeers repeat as a mantra: ‘to obtain peace, Russia must lose’. It never occurs to them to draw the following elementary conclusion from this: the defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war can lead to a nuclear war. Nuclear powers do not lose conflicts where your fate hangs in the balance,” he wrote.

The statement is interesting. If, on the one hand, Medvedev repeats what he has already said on other occasions, appealing to a line that no longer touches Western politicians so much, on the other hand, he reveals an unusual frankness: the admission that the Russians can be defeated.

Already in the official environment of the Kremlin, spokesman Dmitri Peskov was in a similar line when commenting on a report by the American newspaper The New York Times, according to which the government of Joe Biden has discussed supporting an eventual Ukrainian offensive against Crimea — a peninsula that was annexed in 2014 by Russia and is the jewel in Putin’s expansionist crown, home to his Black Sea Fleet.

The report is a trial balloon, as they say in political jargon: for such an attack, Kiev would first need to retake the province of Kherson, something that does not seem so simple. But Peskov took the bait and indicated the Russian reaction.

“That would mean raising the conflict to a new level that will not end well for European security,” the spokesman said. He also spoke about Medvedev’s comment, and endorsed the ally: “It is in accordance with Russian nuclear doctrine”, he said, referring to one of the precepts for the use of unspeakable weapons: existential risk for the State.

On the other hand, a significant announcement by Sweden suggests that the West is willing to test again the red lines constantly redrawn by the Kremlin. Also this Thursday, the Swedish government, which is negotiating its entry into NATO, announced that it will include in Friday’s military megapackage an unspecified number of Archer artillery systems, of which there are 48 units.

It is one of the best self-propelled howitzers in the world, and depending on the ammunition used, it can hit targets up to 50 km away. Until now, Ukraine has depended in this category over 150 mm caliber on the more antiquated Soviet Msta-S, of which it had 40 before the start of the war.

Stockholm also promises to send 50 light tanks. This adds to aid that will be led by up to $2 billion from the United States — which has already announced to include 50 Bradley tanks, the closest thing to a battle tank they promised Kiev, and Patriot anti-aircraft systems.

Here begin the problems of Westerners and their allies, all under the American umbrella of NATO. Volodymir Zelensky’s government wants 300 tanks to hold back the Russian offensive in the east of the country, which this Thursday appears to have come even closer to the vital city of Bakhmut, in Donetsk (Donbass).

Experts say that 100 new tanks would already help balance the game. Until now, NATO has avoided talking about sending tanks for fear of Russian reaction. That changed, and the UK made the first such weapons announcement this week, pledging 14 Challenger-2s for Friday’s European package (which includes allies such as Australia).

All of this put pressure on Germany, which produces the most widely used modern tank in Europe, the Leopard-2. Not only to send some of its 376 tanks, but mainly to authorize other operators to send their product to a third party.

Berlin resists, despite the issue having helped topple its defense minister, Christine Lambrecht, on Monday (16). Prime Minister Olaf Scholz was asked at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland) by European colleagues on the subject, and again he said that caution is needed.

On Wednesday (18), German officials spoke anonymously that Berlin would only release the Leopards if Washington sent its powerful M-1A2 Abrams tanks into the conflict. The American reaction was immediate.

“I don’t think we’re there yet. The Abrams is a complex, expensive piece of equipment, difficult to train in its use,” said Colin Kahl, a Pentagon adviser. The tank uses a turbine engine, like the Russian T-80, which boosts performance but makes it a fuel guzzler — something Ukraine doesn’t have in spades.

As the debate takes place, the Ukrainians raise the charge with the Russians attacking to the east. “We don’t have time. The tank issue needs to be resolved as quickly as possible, we are paying for the delay with the lives of our people,” presidential adviser Andrii Iermak said in Telegram.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you