The world is on the precipice of nuclear conflict and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have moved the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds before midnight. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a wakeup call to world leaders to the danger posed by nuclear weapons. There was a call to curb their proliferation, development, testing, deployment and highlighted the lack of international controls. Following the crisis both superpowers installed ‘hotlines’ so leaders of the world’s largest nuclear states could directly communicate. The CMC taught world leaders of the need to keep open lines of communication and was a reminder of the need for further legal frameworks to control these weapons of ultimate mass destruction.
From Security to Insecurity: Not Learning Lessons of the Past
Lessons of Cuba fresh in the memories of both leaderships; the Limited Test Ban Treaty was immediately signed and followed up by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Détente followed with SALT I and SALT II during the Nixon years. Towards the tail end of the Cold War President Reagan and Soviet Premier Gorbachev inked the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF Treaty). These two treaties formed the ‘backbone’ of nuclear arms control which relieved much of the danger and threat posed to the world by these weapons. The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the focus turned to non-proliferation and securing ex-Soviet stockpiles.
Fast forward to the Clinton Administration which expanded NATO eastward, followed up by the Bush Administration which expanded NATO again. This set the stage for the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit where Bush invited Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. The eventual clash in 2022 was eluded to by Russian President Putin had warned of expansion the year prior at the 2007 Munich Security Conference.
The Bush administration also began the process of dismantling Cold War era nuclear arms control by unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM Treaty due to its intent to place MK 41 Aegis Ashore complexes armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles in Poland and Romania. This was later followed up by President Trump in 2019 with the unilateral withdraw from the INF Treaty. Both countries cite the others non-compliance, but the fact remains that the United States decided in both cases to unilaterally withdraw rather than restore the integrity of these essential treaties. This is the setting for the extremely dangerous situation which the two nuclear superpowers now find themselves.
Changes to Nuclear Doctrines
In 2018 the Trump administration changed America’s strategic nuclear doctrine from a no first-use policy to one of ‘strategic ambiguity’ in its nuclear posture review. This policy shift altered America’s nuclear posture for the first time in decades and was a deeply destabilizing provocation. The American nuclear doctrine shift was finally responded to by Russia on the eve of Ukrainian long-range missile strikes into Russia in 2024. Russia’s nuclear doctrine was altered from no first-use, to one of use if Russia or Belarus were attacked and most importantly if a state attacked Russia that was supported by a nuclear state.
Ukraine and Escalation: To What End?
Foreign policy actions from all parties have been one of escalation and escalation management. Most notably this has been on the Western side of the escalation ledger. First with donated tanks, which were a self-imposed early red line; then F-16s another red line among others. For our purposes Ukrainian missile strikes in July of 2024 were the first major provocation as the missile strike destroyed some Russian early warning nuclear radars. This was followed up in August with the now ill-fated Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. With the Ukrainian military suffering badly on the battlefield, calls for long range missile systems were part of President Zelensky’s ‘victory plan’. However, in mid-September President Biden in a meeting with UK PM Kier Starmer disallowed the use of long-range missiles strikes into Russia with American proprietary software. Sanity and rationality seemed to be winning out.
Following Donald Trump’s resounding presidential election victory on November 5 the Biden Administration suddenly reversed its policy on missile strikes on November 20, allegedly due to North Korean troops operating in Russia. Two days later, on the 1,000 day of the war, ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles were launched into Russia’s Bryansk and Kursk regions. These strikes demonstrated a cavalier approach to President Putin’s warning of September 13 that ATACMS and other strikes would be considered as war provocation. His stated reason, the long-range missiles are dependent on American ISR and data upload, if not actual operation thus direct involvement of American and Western militaries on strikes within prewar Russian territories.
Russia reports that the majority of these missiles were shot down by air defense which has become the norm as Russia’s profiling, electronic warfare and air defense have become extremely effective at shooting down Western missile technology. It behooves us to ask what effect these strikes will have in securing Ukrainian war efforts. It has been reported that a total of 50 ATACMS have been provided to Kiev. Russia since its invasion has launched nearly 11,500 missiles into Ukraine and yet the Ukrainian military offers stiff resistance. The usage of 50 ATACMS comparatively seems a rather odd effort if designed to assist Ukrainian victory. That said, the question remains as to what purpose and end are the long-range strikes into Russia supposed to achieve, aside from petty escalation and bringing the world closer to the brink.
Russia’s Response: The Game has Changed to Checkmate For Now
Russia’s response to the Ukrainian and Western missile strikes was devastating. A day after the ATACMS strikes, Russia launched an Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile with MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle) warheads destroying the Yuzhmash/Pivdenmash missile factory. The Oreshnik released 6 non-explosive ordinance each from its 6 warheads which leveled the massive factory and its underground workshops without using explosives or nuclear material. The live test strike was noted by President Putin as being a fundamental game changing moment. The kinetic strike estimated at Mach 10 or more on impact produced significant damage at the massive facility. The world just witnessed an example of advanced Russian military technical capabilities.
Putting into context the game changing nature of the Russian missile strike. American weapons systems which have been introduced into the war which were supposedly going to shift the tide of war against Russia are old legacy systems. The Abrams main battle tanks and F-16’s were developed 1970’s, the ATACMS in the 1980’s, HIMARS, Storm Shadow/Scalp and Tomahawk cruise missiles in the 1980’s and rolled out in the 1990’s. These are all legacy systems using yesterday’s technology. Combine this with the fact that no Western country currently has deployable hypersonic missile technology. This was demonstrated in July this year when the Biden Administration announced that it would deploy intermediate range Dark Eagle hypersonic weapons to Germany. The problem is, the Dark Eagle is still in testing.
The previous coupled with American and European neglect of air defense in the years after the Soviet collapse exposes Europe to Russian missile dominance. At present on only 5% of Europe is covered by air defense. But even this is a moot point as all Western air defense systems Patriot, Arrow 2, Mantis and IRIS T are not effective against Russia’s hypersonic missile technology.
The overriding point made here is threefold. First, while Russian missile technology was stunning and game changing, it need not have been. The INF treaty would have preempted the need for development and deployment of the Oreshnik. Second, there is now a yawning missile gap and military technology in the field of long-range strike capacity to which the West is at least a decade behind. President Putin unveiled this technology in 2018 which meant the development was many years in the making. Last, the threat of Russian nuclear escalation is for the moment off the table as it has non-nuclear precision strike capabilities, whereas its opponents do not.
Going Forward
President Putin has sent a clear and unambiguous message to hawkish Western leaders; stop escalation and stop it now. The Russian’s have shifted the tide of war, evidenced by Ukraine considering conscription of 18–25-year-olds. All signals are that Ukraine is on the backfoot and possibly heading towards defeat; Western military systems, while impressive and destructive are of a past generation of technology.
President Trump had signaled in his election campaign, a wish to end the war, yet Biden is escalating towards war as he leaves office. Let us hope the President Trump will bring sensibility to American foreign policy by finding a pathway to peace in Ukraine and begin restoring nuclear arms control before it become too late.
[Photo by Vitaly V. Kuzmin, via Wikimedia Commons]
William J. Jones is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at Mahidol University International College, Thailand. His publications and research focus on International Relations of Asia-Pacific, Geopolitics, Comparative Regionalism and Contemporary Thai Politics. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Be the first to comment