This was the week the consequences of the Ukraine war, Nato’s proxy war with Russia, became much clearer. The decision by Joe Biden to allow the use of ATACMS missies, able to fire deep into Russian territory, by Ukraine was another crossing of a red line which he said wouldn’t happen. The reason Biden resisted giving this permission was fear by the US that it would severely escalate the war by bringing the US into direct military conflict with Russia. The missiles need US targeting information, authorisation, and personnel to launch.
By the time he realised he had only weeks left in the White House, however, Biden decided to have one last throw of the dice, in the process hoping to commit his successor, Donald Trump, to continued deep involvement in the war. He had already been encouraged in this by Keir Starmer, whose government is revealing itself as the most belligerent of the western powers over Ukraine. Starmer immediately assured Ukraine it can also use British Storm Shadow missiles against Russia.
Vladimir Putin responded with an attack on Ukraine using new missiles designed to carry tactical nuclear warheads and capable of reaching anywhere in Europe. He has also altered the conditions for nuclear attack to cover a non-nuclear power (Ukraine) backed by a nuclear one (US or Britain).
There are supposedly 10,000 North Korean troops in Kursk, and, reportedly, number of Yemeni fighters, both there to support Russia against Ukraine. This is given as the reason for Biden’s escalation. There is however silence on the huge number of US troops stationed around the world, from Japan and Germany to the Middle East, where there are an estimated 50,000. The Nato countries bordering Russia and Ukraine all have foreign troops on their territory, but this is regarded as totally acceptable. It is common to talk about Nato’s coalition of enemies as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea while conveniently forgetting that China and Russia backed much of western and Nato foreign policy over the past two decades, including the war on Afghanistan and the bombing of Libya. It is the consequences of western foreign policy which has changed this.
Right from the beginning, following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine back in February 2022, the western powers have poured weaponry into the country, while claiming that they were not directly involved in the war itself. That has never been true: Ukrainian troops have been trained in Britain, governments have shared intelligence with Ukraine, special forces have been in the country, a blind eye was turned to ex-army volunteers fighting in the war.
With peace talks in Istanbul between the two sides scuppered by Boris Johnson and others in the spring of 2022, the feeling of the western powers was that it could push Russia onto the back foot and severely weaken its rival. But it didn’t turn out like that. Ukraine was unable to launch the much-vaunted summer offensive of 2023, and since then has been losing the war very slowly and with terrible casualties on both sides. As the war has continued it has become more unpopular with Ukrainians, facing death and injury, greater levels of enforced conscription, and privation and displacement. Russia is slowly advancing in the east of the country, and has also pushed back against the Ukrainian invasion of its Kursk province.
One reason for this is Russia’s advantage in terms of population which is important in the deadly war of attrition being conducted. It is an open secret that the increased use of US and British missiles is not going to alter the balance of forces in the immediate fighting. Its purpose is to do as much damage to Russia in the short term, and to put Ukraine in the most advantageous position possible for the negotiations and peace talks that everyone knows are going to come in the next year.
But the nuclear powers are playing with fire – none more so than Starmer, who seems to spend all his time at international summits while his domestic popularity plummets. If Putin decides to retaliate further, then Britain will be a major target. And the consequences of further western missile hits inside Russia may well be devastating.
This point is repeatedly downplayed by western politicians, who on the one hand portray Putin as the new Hitler but on the other dismiss his threats as those of a paper tiger. He is neither. But he is in possession of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war is looming greater than it has for decades.
There has always been a strand of the left that supported the arming of Ukraine in the slipstream of British government policy, on the grounds that it was about the right of small nations to self-determination. It’s a spurious argument: Ukraine does not have self-determination from the Nato powers, as is now very clear. And just as the justification for the First World War, that it guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium against German aggression, hid the reality that this was a war for markets and empire, so this justification ignores the role of inter imperial rivalry and the warmongering of the Nato powers.
This war will end with negotiations – but how many people will have to die before that happens?
Source: Counterfire
