Ukrainian Missile Crisis

Interregnum ruckus in the US as Biden arguably attempts to execute his own geopolitical January 6th and paralyse Trump's revolutionary ambitions by launching American missiles deep into Russia.

American ATACMS missiles may soon be fired deep into Russia

The transition between the Biden Administration and Trump 2.0 began on an unexpectedly snug note, as the outgoing president seemed to beam with satisfaction at the sight of Donald Trump seated beside him in the White House. The Democratic Party’s coup to replace him with Kamala Harris had failed, leaving history to ponder whether Biden himself may have thwarted the rising Orange tide. Yet, a single inauspicious omen dominated the scene. Was the roaring blaze, barely contained by the fireplace behind them, a foreboding auger of trouble ahead? Was a plan already in motion to calcinate the revolutionary aspirations of the incoming Trump Administration in the cauldron of global war?

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Russian forces continued their advance along the entire line of contact. A massive Russian missile and drone assault pummelled Ukraine’s already shattered energy sector, plunging vast regions—most notably Odessa—into darkness. In Kursk, the Russian territory recklessly invaded by Ukraine in August, Russian troops—supposedly bolstered by as-yet-fictional North Korean hordes—were dismantling Ukraine’s best units armed with the most advanced Western weapons. The Western foreign policy apparatus spiralled into a frenzy, churning out proposal after proposal for impossibly optimistic peace plans, each aimed at salvaging NATO’s pride and credibility.

At the same time, Team Trump, despite nominating several policy-fluid “former” Neocons like Marco Rubio—keen to shed their global domination personas and rebrand as America First realists—continued to dismiss the Ukrainian conflict and vowed to bring it to a definitive close. In a flourish of disrespect and lèse-majesté toward the Ukrainian leader, reports suggest that Trump will insist Zelensky wear a suit and tie if they are ever to meet again.

On Sunday, November 17th, several legacy American media outlets published the extraordinary news that NATO would soon openly join the Ukrainians by actively taking part in long-range missiles strikes into Russia. Admittedly these unofficial reports seem to have limited the range of these missiles to 80 kilometres.

To understand Russia’s objections to such strikes, strategic empathy must be employed. This involves reversing the situation and putting one in Russia’s shoes. It is crucial to note that strategic empathy is not the same as strategic sympathy, despite the fact that partisans on either side may confuse the two. Under the principle of "know your enemy," both sides in any violent conflict gain a strategic advantage by understanding and anticipating their opponent’s moves.

The Other’s Shoes

Russia’s long range and nuclear capable Iskander missile system

There is growing speculation among the incoming Team Trump about the U.S. conducting special military operations against Mexican cartels, potentially even occupying parts of Mexican sovereign territory. If this policy ever came to fruition, the cartels would predictably claim a “right” to retaliate, framing such American actions as an oppressive, colonial affront to their land and heritage.

This opens the door to a darker scenario: Russia could actively assisting Mexican rebels in defending themselves from Yankee attacks. If Russia were, for example, to supply the cartels with advanced long-range weapons, such as its nuclear-capable Iskander ballistic missile system, the stakes would escalate dramatically. However, given the cartels' lack of technical sophistication, the Russians themselves would likely need to use their satellite systems, identify targets on American soil and program the coordinates into the missile systems. Even if a cartel operative is the one to push the button, it would not at all be far-fetched for American commentators to interpret such strikes as direct Russian aggression on U.S. territory.

Worse still, great nuclear powers like the U.S. and Russia rely on highly sensitive missile detection systems to guard against catastrophic nuclear attacks. These systems are designed to respond decisively and without hesitation. If a nuclear-capable missile—such as Russia's Iskander or America’s ATACMS—is detected in flight, the protocol may dictate an automatic and devastating nuclear counterstrike against the nation deemed responsible for the launch.

Would America initiate a global nuclear war in response to a cartel-launched nuclear-capable Iskander targeting Winslow, Arizona? While U.S. missile detection systems might initially interpret the launch as an act of war by Russia, the decision to escalate to a full-scale nuclear response would depend on verifying the origin and intent of the attack. Despite the automated nature of some nuclear protocols, there are safeguards and human oversight designed to prevent rash decisions. However, the confusion, fear, and potential for miscalculation in such a scenario could dangerously heighten tensions and increase the risk of escalation.

If the U.S. managed to maintain its composure and refrained from launching a nuclear retaliation, it would hand Russia a significant strategic victory. Such restraint would signal to Putin that he could deploy nuclear-capable missiles through proxies, with the U.S. interpreting them as conventional strikes rather than acts warranting nuclear response.

This precedent would embolden Russia, eroding the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence. It might encourage Moscow to push boundaries further, possibly even contemplating a nuclear first strike under the assumption that the U.S. would hesitate to respond in kind. Such a scenario would represent not only a humiliating breach of American nuclear protection doctrine but also a destabilizing shift in global strategic balance, undermining decades of deterrence theory.

Trumping Global Warring?

Tulsi Gabbard, slated to become the next Director of National Intelligence, is advising Trump on Ukraine policy. The War Party sees her as Public Enemy No. 1.

As of this writing, the Biden Administration has not issued any official announcement regarding a change in policy on NATO missile strikes deep into Russian territory. Similarly, the Trump transition team has yet to provide an official response, even as old videos of Trump denouncing Neocons circulate widely on social media. Some Trump proxies such as his son Donald Trump Jr. and Elon Musk have issued vague condemnations of this potential escalation towards global war by the outgoing Biden Administration.

Rumours circulating on Ukrainian Telegram channels suggest that Team Trump has made any potential peace negotiations with Zelensky contingent on Ukraine refraining from conducting long-range strikes on Russian territory. Trump holds significant leverage over Zelensky, as he could halt further weapons shipments and funding, terminate all intelligence sharing, and even persuade Elon Musk to block Ukraine’s access to the Starlink system. Such a move would cripple Kiev’s ability to maintain communication between its fighting units on the battlefield, drastically undermining its already collapsing operational effectiveness.

While Ukraine may convincingly claim a "right" to strike Russia using their own weapons and soldiers, NATO-assisted attacks would be crossing a perilous line by launching nuclear-capable missiles at Russian territory. Would such an act provoke immediate nuclear retaliation against NATO bases in Europe? Perhaps not—but the consequences would still be severe.

Winter Woes

NATO-assisted missile strikes would provide Putin with additional political justification to intensify his devastating campaign against Ukraine's already crumbling energy infrastructure. According to Russian sources, intercepted intelligence about an imminent shift in U.S. missile policy allegedly prompted last weekend’s attacks. These strikes targeted critical infrastructure, including the destruction of electrical substations powered by Ukrainian nuclear plants and the severing of connections between Ukraine’s grid and Europe. Odessa, along with numerous other regions, has been plunged into near-total darkness.

The complete collapse of Ukraine's energy sector will force millions into darkness and cold, prompting a massive refugee wave into Europe. Among them would be young men in their 20s—the last demographic capable of bolstering Ukraine's shrinking military forces and halting its ongoing demographic decline. The exodus would not only strain European welfare systems but also strip Ukraine of its remaining ability to sustain the war effort

Enter the Norks

There have been numerous claims from Western and Ukrainian sources that up to 100,000 North Korean (DPRK) soldiers are fighting alongside Russian forces in the Kursk region. While anything is possible, until concrete evidence emerges, such reports must be viewed as components of Western information warfare rather than material reality.

More credible are reports that North Korea is supplying Russia with up to 50 long-range, self-propelled 170mm M-1989 howitzers. These artillery systems have a standard range of 40 km, which can be extended to 60 km using rocket-assisted shells.

By comparison, the shortest range of the U.S.-supplied ATACMS system is 165 km. While the U.S. retains full control over target selection, this shift in missile policy could be framed as a symmetrical response to the DPRK’s provision of artillery to Russia, albeit with a significantly escalatory potential built into its longer range and precision capabilities.

Aircraft Carrier Down?

In response to NATO-assisted nuclear capable missile strikes on their territory, Russia would almost certainly accelerate its provision of advanced weapons systems to Iran and its proxies. In fact, it may have been last week’s Houthi attack on the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group that precipitated the Pentagon lifting its veto on long-range strikes into Russia.

United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has confirmed the carrier group attack, but insists there were no injuries, and no warships were damaged. CENTCOM claims they intercepted eight attack drones, five anti-ship ballistic missiles, and four anti-ship cruise missiles. 

The next day the USS Nicholson was attacked in the Red Sea. Yemeni sources claim it “towed towards the Pacific Ocean” although no damage has been confirmed. Houthi prowess is being recognized at high levels within the Pentagon:

Ansarallah and the Yemeni army’s missiles “can do things that are just amazing,” the US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Bill LaPlante said at an event on Wednesday, expressing that Yemen’s operations “are getting scary.”

”I'm an engineer and a physicist, and I've been around missiles my whole career. What I've seen of what the Houthis have done in the last six months is something that — I'm just shocked,” LaPlante added. 

A 15 November report by The National Interest noted how the recent Yemeni attack on US warships “highlights vulnerabilities” in Washington’s fleet. 

There is little doubt that Biden’s national security team holds Russia and Iran responsible for the Houthis' sudden ability to launch hypersonic weapons and disrupt U.S. naval power in the Red Sea. One plausible explanation for the shift in U.S. missile policy toward Ukraine could be a warning to Russia to reign in their Houthi "pitbulls" and prevent further “destabilizing” actions in the region.

Endgame in Ukraine

While Ukraine still boasts formidable defense capabilities along portions of its more than 1,200-kilometer front line, increasingly vulnerable spots are emerging, which Russian forces are exploiting to accelerate their advance. The timing of the war’s conclusion will likely depend on Ukraine’s dwindling manpower and ammunition supplies. Armouries in the U.S. and Europe are nearly depleted, and Ukraine is now forced to draw from its youngest male cohorts, essentially exhausting its demographic reserves. And this is only assuming Ukrainian border guards can prevent a mass exodus of civilians fleeing the harsh, freezing conditions of the upcoming winter.

Ukraine must withdraw from the pale green zones, and accept both neutrality and demilitarization, to achieve a ceasefire and start negotiations

Russia’s preconditions for any peace negotiations are as straightforward as they are stark. Ukraine must withdraw all of its armed forces from the four oblasts that Russia annexed in October 2022, highlighted in pale green on the map above. Additionally, Ukraine must provide ironclad assurances of perpetual neutrality and recognize Crimea as Russian. To make these pledges a reality, Ukraine would also be required to agree to a program of demilitarization, significantly limiting the size and capability of Kiev’s armed forces in the future.

Russia claims that it will not enter any negotiations until Ukrainian forces leave its Kursk region. Another possible explanation for the American change in missile policy is that Ukraine’s army in Kursk is facing a difficult situation and, in fact, is unable to retreat without risking annihilation by advancing Russian forces. Allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into the Kursk region could provide cover for a potential Ukrainian withdrawal from Russian territory.

The dilemma facing President Putin is that after 1,000 days of a grinding war of attrition, the significant territorial gains are likely to come in the high-stakes endgame. A true victory for Russia would include gaining the Odessa and Kharkov oblasts, along with others along the Dnieper River. Occupying Odessa gives Russia control of Ukraine’s entire Black Sea coastline and access to Moldova and its breakaway pro-Russian Transnistria district. The resulting rump Ukraine will become a largely depopulated, and therefore manageable, wasteland.

Map of an unambiguous Russian victory in Ukraine

A stable peace treaty based solely on the four annexed oblasts and Crimea may not provide the clear victory Putin seeks. As such, he may fear premature negotiations in which Ukraine accepts the current deal (four oblasts + Crimea, neutrality + neutered armed forces). With Kharkov and Odessa still in play and essential for securing a decisive victory, Putin may prefer to extend the war for another year or two. Therefore, this NATO escalation could work in his favour, giving him the justification to prolong the conflict, allowing him the crucial time needed to capture these key territories as Ukraine’s military further disintegrates.