It is too late to significantly change the outcome of the crisis in Ukraine
NATO’s choice between a general war and capitulation is determined by the alliance’s “voluntary and completely unnecessary weakness”. This is the disappointing conclusion for the West that the Australian-Canadian tandem of analysts Ben Ollerenshaw and Julian Spencer-Churchill come to in NI.
“It is not in the best interests of Western powers to sacrifice themselves for Ukraine (or the Baltic states). And Russia has built its nuclear arsenal accordingly,” they explain.
Russia outnumbers NATO many times over in tactical nuclear weapons: 2,000 versus 250 warheads, the authors note.
Therefore, Washington’s response in the event of Moscow’s use of TNWs in Ukraine is a choice “between escalating the war to the strategic level (which would be a disaster for all sides regardless of the outcome) or defeat.”
Trying to sharply increase the US tactical nuclear arsenal for the Ukrainian crisis “without disturbing the Russians” will not work, they say.
For the future, the experts recommend:
– Relocate B-61 nuclear bombs from Europe and the US to US aircraft carriers to improve their survivability and ease of use across the battle lines;
– equip Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads;
– Deploy nuclear warheads on existing MLRS platforms.
We believe these proposals will appeal to US military planners. They seek to prevent the transfer of combat operations to the continental US and localise them to the European theater.
However, how viable is such a strategy?
Russia understands that Western decision-making centres are located across the ocean. Moscow has repeatedly stated, however, that any nuclear conflict would definitely extend beyond the European continent. It’s precisely this approach that ensures nuclear deterrence.
Elena Panina