Developing. We are publishing this article as it is being written. Please check back for updates

To see a list of previous articles, enter “Ukraine” in the Search Box on the upper right, and you will see a list in chronological order.

Dispatches

1) Andrew Roth, “Russia threatens Ukraine’s ‘decision-making centres’ if Kyiv uses western arms in Crimea; Use of US- and UK-supplied missiles would mark west’s ‘full involvement’, Russian defence minister says,’ The Guardian, June 20, 2023 (17.26 BST);

Analysis

We and others have commented at length about Joe Biden’s fear of Putin and his nuclear threats.

But there has been little commentary on Vladimirv Putin’s fear of NATO.

From an objective point of view, Putin has much greater reason to fear NATO and NATO forces than Biden has to fear Putin and Russian forces.

These fears are based on realities, particulaely with respect to engaging NATO forces in direct combat, or doing something stupid like detonating a tactical nuclear warhead in Ukraine or using chemical weapons.

It is in this light that recent statements from Russian officials must be viewed.

Andrew Roth of The Guardian reports,

Russia has threatened a strike against Kyiv’s “decision-making centres” if Ukraine uses western-supplied missiles against the occupied peninsula of Crimea, in the Kremlin’s latest attempt to inhibit Nato support for Kyiv amid the ongoing Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister, said on Tuesday that the potential use of US-supplied Himars and UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Crimea would mark the west’s “full involvement in the conflict and would entail immediate strikes upon decision-making centres in Ukrainian territory”. Those are seen to include the Ukrainian presidential administration and intelligence headquarters

This is a bizarre war, in which Russia seeks to dictate what weapons can or cannot be used in exercise of its right of self-defense under international law and the U.N. Charter.

Biden and NATO have generally reacted passively to these and similar threats.

The proper response to Russian General Shoigu’s threats would be:

1) to reaffirm Ukraine’s right of self-defense against Russia’s ongoing illegal invasion of the country. This right encompasses the right to strike military targets and decision centers in Russia which are supporting the invasion by various means including missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian cities and other targets. The right of self-defense also encompasses the right to shoot down aircraft from which missiles are being launched against Ukraine, regardless of whether they are over Russian territory or the Black Sea. Ukraine may also lawfully exercise its right of self-defense by attacking ships firing missiles or launching drones against targets in Ukraine, no matter where they are located.

2) to reaffirm the right of the United States and other countries, including NATO countries, to assist Ukraine in defending its territory in exercise of the inherent right of collective self-defense guaranteed by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

This includes the right to furnish Ukraine with weapons to use against targets in Russia in exercise of the right of individual and collective self-defense.

It also includes the right of other countries, including NATO countries, to directly strike targets in Russia with their own military forces, in exercise of their right of collective self-defense.

Significantly, nations acting in collective self-defense may undertake all of the self-defensive measures to which Ukraine is entitled.includes all of the self-defensive uses of force to which Ukraine is entitled. Even where Ukraine lacks the capability to fully exercise its right of self-defense, other countries such as NATO countries may do so with their own forces.

That means that Russian ships in tge Caspian Sea or tge Mediterrean from which missiles are being fired at Ukraine would be legitimate targets for the armed forces of NATO and other countries coming to the assistance of Ukraine in exercise of their right of collective self-defense.

The U.S. and other NATO countries should in any event relax the restrictions on the use of weapons transferred to Ukraine against military targets in Russia from which attacks on Ukrainian cities and other targets are being launched and supported.

That means NATO forces would be legally justified in attacking military targets and command centers in Russia.

In response to Shoigu’s threats, NATO countries including the U.S. should state publicly that if Russia carries out Shoigu’s threats, they will relax any restrictions on arms transfers to Ukraine that restrict that country’s exercise of its right of self-defense under international law and the U.N. Charter–with immediate effect.

There appears to be nothing Putin fears more than the direct engagement of NATO forces against the Russian military, which would be in exercise of their right of collective self-defense under international law and the U.N. Charter.

Putin could detonate a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine at some point of desperation. The U.S. and other NATO countries should make clear to him and age Russian public what could happen then, describing a broad range of options and their potential effects.

This the U.S. and NATO countries have probably already done in private. Given the wild nuclear talk in Russian state-controlled media, it would be useful to detail these options and likely consequences–in a cool and level-headed manner.

One thing NATO countries could do in resoonse to a Russian use of a nuclear device world be to to take out the Russian military forces in Ukraine.

Putin and Russia would then be directly engaged with NATO forces, the one thing Putin–and certainly his generals–probably want most to avoid.

It is time to focus on Putin’s fears of NATO. His “red lines” have been repeatedly crossed by Ukraine and the West, producing no significant response. Theynhave been mostly bluffs.

Putin needs to understand now, whatever his experience with Joe Biden may have been, that his nuclear threats lack credibility among many NATO members. And Biden us not the only one making military decisions for the West, as Britain’s supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine so clearly demonstrates.

Shoigu’s threats represent a recognition bybRussian military leaders of the extreme vulnerability if their forces, especially in the Crimea, to the British long-range missiles and the American long-range HIMARS artillery rockets (ATACMS).

If anything, this admission of vulnerability by Russian military leaders should spur Joe Biden on to give the “green light” everyone has been awaiting for the use of the long-range ATACMS artillery rockets.

Putin’s fears of NATO should be growing. Indeed, given the disparate capabilities of his forces and those of NATO, he should be shaking in his boots.

The carefully calibrated threats of Shoigu suggest that his fears of NATO are great. He was quite careful, for example, to state that only targets within Ukraine would be attacked–and clearly not any target in a NATO country.

The U.S. and NATO should take actions designed to increase those fears and thereby increase the deterrence of any foolish actions on Russia’s part.

The Trenchant Observer

***

A selection of the best articles from The Trenchant Observer is published on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday in the Trenchant Observations newsletter on Substack.

You may subscribe here,

Analysis

The Trenchant Observer

***

A selection of the best articles from The Trenchant Observer is published on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday in the Trenchant Observations newsletter on Substack.

You may subscribe here,

Analysis

The Trenchant Observer

***

A selection of the best articles from The Trenchant Observer is published on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday in the Trenchant Observations newsletter on Substack.

You may subscribe here,