Will Russia's military invasion of Ukraine include a nuclear disaster?

[sear]

Why sending Ukraine tanks represents a fierce new step by the West​

Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN International Security Editor // Updated 10:11 PM EST, Wed January 25, 2023
It is a momentous decision, partly because these – unlike the air defense systems, or the anti-tank missiles – are not defensive weapons. Like the artillery and rocket systems that preceded them, they are intended to hit Russia’s troops hard in a ground offensive. But unlike those systems, they are unequivocally about Ukraine retaking territory. This is new, and fierce, and it portrays a NATO unafraid.

This latest burst of Western help says two things. First, these nations are not concerned about breaching Russian “red lines.” The long-held belief is crumbling that some elements of NATO assistance to Ukraine could risk provoking a nuclear power too far.

Second, these NATO members are less concerned about being attacked by Russia itself in the imminent future: they are handing over weapons they would urgently need in the event of such a conflict. The Danes’ decision to send their Caesar artillery; the Norwegian decision to send a large proportion of their Leopards; both are testament to this. These NATO members think the decisive conflict with Russia will be in Ukraine, with Ukraine. And that might suggest they believe Moscow will not win.

Western inventories can be rebuilt or replenished, but it takes time – decades maybe. And NATO members are pledging equipment at such a pace that the last announcement is not in play before the next one comes.

Why sending Ukraine tanks represents a fierce new step by the West | CNN

After weeks of Poland and other NATO members openly pressuring Germany to permit the dispatch of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, finally it appears the United States and some of its European Union allies will send armor -- a move that was unthinkable months ago to the frontline against Russia.

www.cnn.com

 

[sear]

The front line update March 9, 2023:
The following headline similar to the way the Pentagon formulates "contingency plans", in part so the U.S. military can respond efficiently and effectively, rather than merely churning the fuster-cluck.

Boris Pistorius, the defense minister of Germany, has outlined how NATO would respond should China transfer weapons to Russia in the ongoing war in Ukraine.

On the sidelines of a summit in Stockholm, Pistorius said the support for Kyiv will be strengthened even further if China starts supplying weapons to Russia, DW News reported on Thursday, noting that Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg were also participating in the Stockholm meeting and discussed the supply of weapons to Kyiv.

NATO outlines how it will respond if China supplies weapons to Russia

Beijing has denied allegations that it had suggested supplying Moscow with weapons in the ongoing war in Ukraine.

www.newsweek.com

BUT !!

Ukraine war live updates: Russia unleashes massive drone and missile strike on Ukraine; huge nuclear power plant loses power​

source: CNBC

This is not the first time Russia has courted nuclear disaster with warfare in Ukraine. Earlier in Russia's Ukraine invasion Russia stationed troops near a Ukrainian commercial nuclear power plant, apparently to discourage Ukrainian defensive, retaliatory military weapons fire.

Does the U.S. military and or NATO have viable contingency plans, if military munitions breach a Ukrainian nuclear facility? If such nuclear event occurs, it may be as bad or worse a disaster than the Chernobyl disaster of decades ago.

Will the U.S. / NATO / West shrug it off?
Or are our allies and trading partners willing to, prepared to respond appropriately?

Meanwhile the second year of this Russia / Ukraine War grinds on in what U.S. JCS Chairman General Mike Milley referred to as a "stalemate".

 

[Rampage]

In crisis situations, nuclear weapons may be used in two ways: to deter (deterrence) and to compel (compellence). Deterrence prevents aggression by an adversary via the threat of a massive counter-attack. Compellence is used in the interest of obtaining something​

NATO Review - Russia’s nuclear coercion in Ukraine

In 2022, the spectre of nuclear weapons use has returned to centre stage in Europe. From the very beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin has brandished his country’s nuclear sword in an attempt to compel Ukraine to capitulate to...

www.nato.int

Putin has already threatened first use of nuclear weapons. Insider reports indicate the risk of nuclear retaliation has restrained him so far.

 

[sear]

Thanks R #83.

"Compellence".
The logic is evident enough. I hadn't encountered the word until now.

The risk?
Putin's an old man. He ordered the invasion of Ukraine on overwhelmingly inaccurate information, apparently thinking it would be as easy as Crimea.

So just how desperate is Putin now? How much more desperate will Putin get?

 

[sear]

Russia's new offensive in Ukraine appears to have stalled already, according to an assessment by a U.S.-based think tank.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-new-offensive-ukraine-stalled-isw-1788143

 

[Rampage]

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark struck a deal to run their 200+ advanced fighter jets as a single fleet, creating a new headache for Russia​

Alia Shoaib Sat, March 25, 2023 at 6:42 AM EDT

• The four Nordic countries agreed to operate their roughly 250 fighter jets in one fleet.
• Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, have modern air forces that include F-35s.
• They joined forces hoping to deter Russia.

The air forces of four Nordic countries agreed to operate their fleets of around 250 fighter jets as a combined force, hoping to deter Russia by working together.
Air force commanders of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark said Friday that they have signed a letter of intent to establish a unified Nordic air defense, Reuters reported.
"The ultimate goal is to be able to operate seamlessly together as one force by developing a Nordic concept for joint air operations based on already known NATO methodology," Denmark's air force said in a statement, per Bloomberg.
"Our combined fleet can be compared to a large European country," commander of the Danish air force, Major General Jan Dam, told Reuters.
Dam said the move was in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine last year.

Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark struck a deal to run their 200+ advanced fighter jets as a single fleet, creating a new headache for Russia

Norway, Denmark, and Finland operate the top-tier F-35 fighter jets, while Sweden has its own Gripen E planes.

news.yahoo.com

They'll need to implement a single command structure. Coalition command is fine for training. For actual combat command, a single commander works best. If these 4 nations have their own air command, how will that mesh with NATO command?

 

[sear]

They'll need to implement a single command structure. Coalition command is fine for training. For actual combat command, a single commander works best.

R #86
I've posted it before, most vessels at sea, in air or space have one chief executive, a "commander".
But NASA's now obsolete space shuttles were fly by wire. The aeronautical engineers that designed shuttle re-entry flight control believed re-entry pilot control would be beyond reliable human pilot capability.
But rather than leave the fate of the returning rocket-ship, crew, & payload to a single computer, re-entering NASA shuttles had a parliament of 4 computers, receiving identical inputs for trajectory, atmospheric density, etc.
Each of the 4 received identical input. Each of the 4 then voted on how to operate the controls to bring about the intended outcome: landing safely.
Unanimous votes were acted upon automatically.
But if one of the 4 computers drew a conclusion that differed from the other 3, the oddball computer's further voting privilege was automatically electronically revoked.
It's the only example I know of a vessel with humans aboard whose helmsman feeds requests to a Silicon committee.

The issue of chain of command is worth noting. I hope they don't fail to specify this detail in chain of command precisely. There may be some perverse incentive for them to do so, for political considerations.

 

[sear]

A little bit back to topic:

Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, said on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin disregarded Chinese President Xi Jinping by stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus after they both agreed to not deploy nuclear weapons beyond their national territories.
"Both Putin and [Belarusian President Alexander] Lukashenko humiliated Xi . Remember, Luka was just treated to a fancy state visit to China. Xi just came to Moscow. Can't imagine this decision is going down well in Beijing," McFaul wrote on Twitter on Sunday.

Putin "humiliated" China's Xi with nuclear decision: Former ambassador

Russia seems to have overlooked its agreement with China to not deploy nuclear weapons beyond their national borders, according to Michael McFaul on Sunday.

www.newsweek.com

I confess to being quite ill-at-ease about what superficial appearance suggested might be a strengthening alliance between Russia and China following their recent summit meeting.
But if this Newsweek report of the U.S. ambassador is true, Putin may have strangled that international alliance in the crib.

The bad news of course is nuclear proliferation.

 

[sear]

- or -
Ukraine calls for emergency UN meeting to counter Russia’s ‘nuclear blackmail’
by Stephen Neukam - 03/26/23 1:51 PM ET
Ukraine is requesting an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Sunday after Russia said it had reached an agreement to station nuclear weapons in Belarus, calling on the U.S. and other world powers to counter the Kremlin’s “nuclear blackmail.”
“Ukraine expects effective measures to counter the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail by the United Kingdom, China, the USA and France, in particular, as permanent members of the UN Security Council,” Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “We demand to immediately convene an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council for this purpose.”

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...meeting-to-counter-russias-nuclear-blackmail/

 

[sear]

This account suggests Putin has done more to harm an otherwise potentially strengthening alliance with China than it has to irk Ukraine's numerous allies. "However, just four days after, it became clear that the agreement with Putin was worthless." from the article excerpted below:

How Russian Nukes in Belarus Undermine China's Xi Authority Instead of Scaring NATO​

Monday, 27 March 2023 — Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda
After the betrayal by the Russian leader, China will treat him more cautiously. Photo by AFP/East News

"All nuclear powers must not deploy nuclear weapons outside their national territories," Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signed this joint statement in Moscow. The document was supposed to confirm the comprehensive partnership of the two anti-Western states.
However, just four days after, it became clear that the agreement with Putin was worthless. Contrary to the deal with Beijing, Russia will deploy its nuclear weapons on the territory of the neighbouring state, Belarus.
Nuclear decisions attract particular attention, given numerous hints from Moscow about using its nuclear arsenal. But this particular decision does not increase the nuclear threat. Even if Russia launches nuclear war, little will be gained by launching the carrier from Belarusian, not Russian, space.

Therefore, the reaction of the USA and NATO to this statement has turned out to be quite restrained.
More importantly, Putin's nuclear announcement is a slap in the face to Xi and will affect trust between China and Russia.
It may also affect Belarusian dictator Lukashenka.

https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/eng/articles/2023/03/27/7158755/

It's not clear what Putin hoped to gain by so swiftly betraying his potentially most powerful ally against peaceful Western stability, China.
Additional reports corroborate that dissatisfaction with Putin is not confined to Ukraine or NATO. Some reports indicate the Kremlin is already seeking a successor to Putin.

 

[Rampage]

Russia Warns of Chernobyl Repeat in Ukraine Due to NATO Aid​

By David Brennan On 4/11/23 at 10:24 AM EDT

What Is Depleted Uranium? Putin Warns Against UK Plan To Send Ammunition

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson has accused NATO partners of embarking on a "scorched earth" policy by providing Kyiv with advanced weapons to help it fight off Moscow's full-scale invasion, now in its second year with no end in sight.
Maria Zakharova wrote on her Telegram channel on Monday that the United Kingdom's decision to send depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine for use by donated Challenger 2 main battle tanks—which Moscow has framed as nuclear escalation—poses a serious threat to Ukrainians as well as the Russians they will be used to fight.
"The U.K., by supplying depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine, wants to turn its territory into a scorched and desolate land," Zakharova—known for her hawkish rhetoric and goading of the Kremlin's Western adversaries—wrote, as translated by the state-run TASS news agency.

"No Russian will be spoken there, no Ukrainian will be spoken there, there will only be silence. Like in Pripyat and Chernobyl," Zakharova wrote, referring to areas of northern Ukraine left uninhabitable by the infamous Soviet Union-era nuclear disaster there.

Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova attends a press conference at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow, on April 4, 2023. "The U.K., by supplying depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine, wants to turn its territory into a scorched and desolate land," Zakharova wrote on Telegram. ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP via Getty Images
Newsweek reached out to the British Defense Ministry by email to request comment.
Newsweek Newsletter sign-up >
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-warns-chernobyl-repeat-ukraine-depleted-uranium-1793642

The Pentagon prepares contingency plans, to facilitate a more rapid response, if needed.
What is the Pentagon contingency plan for Russia demolishing an active nuclear power plant?
Will external (non-Russian) pressure back Putin down, or drive him to backlash, as expected of a wild animal when cornered?

 

[sear]

R #91

Putin's behavior suggests to me he's extremely desperate. Clearly the risk of accident is severe, regardless of likelihood.
Whether Putin will try nuclear scorched Earth, destroying a Ukraine commercial power plant in desperation, or for spite, not sure even Putin knows yet.
Fukushima offers some insight to potential consequences.