3 Scenarios for Ukraine Missile Madness

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

It wouldn’t be any kind of year in the 2020’s without another End of the World scare. So, behold some really Bad Ideas™ fresh out of the oven for your regularly scheduled programming. Did you think the DC blob would let you relax after the election? I was ready to talk about some good news for a change. 

The scenario: As the Ukraine war sails past its thousandth day, and with just two months until Donald Trump resumes the US presidency, the Biden administration has finally decided to allow long-range strikes from American weapons into Russia. Specifically, Ukraine is now authorized to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, with a range of around 180 miles or 300 kilometers. Reports indicate that Ukraine may have as few as 50 of these missiles, which is strategically insignificant. Zelensky noted that Ukraine has long-range drones and “more than one” long-range Neptune missile. 

Now, if you’ve been following this conflict and are aware of geography, you’ll know a few things:

• The war is proceeding disastrously for Ukraine, and its Donbass front is collapsing

• Ukraine is fully dependent on Western support and its desires matter little now

• 180 miles is not particularly deep into Russian territory

• The ATACMS are unlikely to have any material effect on the war effort

• The billions of dollars thrown at Ukraine from NATO countries represent a boon to arms manufacturers but a boondoggle to polities

• There have been numerous long-range strikes inside Russia prior to this announcement

So what gives? What’s the goal of this announcement, and what can we expect to see? We’ll examine three conflicting viewpoints — optimistic, realistic, and unhinged — but first let’s nail down the facts. 

On Tuesday, November 19, some 6 ATACMS missiles fell on a military installation near Bryansk, in Russia’s southwest. So far no casualties have been reported and the damage has been minimal, at least according to official sources. The missiles struck a relatively low-value military target, most likely for propaganda purposes. 

The big news, however, is this: In response to the strike and the new US policy, Russia has updated its nuclear doctrine. As of Tuesday, the new doctrine stipulates:

…Any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.

"We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia and we will react accordingly," Putin's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said in English, adding that U.S. personnel and data must have been used in the ATACMS attack on Russia.

That Russia has updated its doctrine to such an official announcement is not terribly surprising, but it is bold—they’ve set a red line. At the same time, Russia has endured long-range attacks previously without significant changes, so just how bright is that red line? 

For example, in June, beachgoers in Crimea were splattered with the remains of an ATACMS missile carrying cluster bombs. In September, a massive explosion at a munitions depot near Tver exploded after an alleged long-range drone attack. Russia could have updated its nuclear doctrine either time, but didn’t. 

But other rumblings indicate this week’s move may be more than just the status quo. In addition to Russia’s update of its nuclear policy, two internet cables have been cut in the Baltic sea — one between Sweden and Lithuania, and another between Germany and Finland. Though the culprit is as yet unknown, cutting cables has long been a possibility for Russia. Some reports indicate the cable damage may be the result of a Chinese cargo ship “accidentally” dragging anchor: 

Furthermore, massive Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure has led to blackouts in Odessa and other cities, indicating Russia’s response to escalation. 

The panic is real. On Wednesday, November 20, the US State department issued this announcement: 

This is a new level. So what’s different about now as opposed to previous long-range strikes? What could the US-led NATO hope to accomplish with the official announcement, and what does Russia’s response mean? 

Because this is all baffling and no dust has settled, let’s examine three outcome scenarios. These are distinctly different viewpoints, and I’m not sure which to believe yet. 

The Optimistic View

Allowing ATACMS and other long-range missiles to be fired into Russia will accomplish jack squat. So why allow it? 

Doing so could simply be a way for the Pentagon to throw more money to ATACMS manufacturer Lockheed Martin. Since president-elect Trump has indicated he wants an immediate ceasefire to the war, defense contractors are likely pushing to use as many munitions as possible to allow for additional orders. With each missile costing $1 to $1.5 million, Lockheed Martin is happy for these things to be flung around. 

While this is morally and economically bankrupt — the Broken Windows theory of economics on steroids — it’s more humdrum than an escalation towards World War 3. Ukraine acts as the world’s largest money laundromat for the next couple of months and this all gets wrapped up. The Pentagon has just failed its 7th audit in a row and the incoming administration will want to know where the hell all the money has gone, so if you’re in the military-industrial complex you smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. 

From Putin’s point of view, Russia cannot allow an escalation from the US to go unchallenged — thus the heated rhetoric and large-scale infrastructure strikes. At the same time, NATO and Russia have successfully avoided nuking each other for more than 70 years now. As the rabid US foreign policy establishment will be put down in a couple of months, Russia can wait a measly ~60 more days until Trump’s inauguration. 

The Realistic View

American and European foreign policy leaders may simply not be thinking about the second- or third-order consequences of their actions. They fell prey to groupthink as those in the DC and Brussels blobs often do, convincing themselves early in the war that Russia’s military was rickety and would collapse with a few pushes. They may earnestly believe that allowing additional munitions to Ukraine can help break Russia’s army, or at least scare it into backing out of the war. 

Ironically, this is a trend throughout history — Napoleon and an Austrian painter both thought Russia would be a pushover. Whoopsie. 

Furthermore, using the missiles may be a cover to help extract non-Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the Kursk pocket. NATO soldiers on Russian soil (as is reportedly the case) would be more than just a bad look — it’d be a casus belli for Russia and a permanent stain on NATO’s reputation.

Zelensky is likely using the missiles as a way to continue the life support NATO is providing to Ukraine. While he has to know they’ll make little difference to the outcome of the war, continuing to provoke Russia and impress benefactors with large-but-ineffective explosions will keep the gravy train rolling for at least a while longer. 

From Russia’s point of view: Moscow may not yet be content with its territorial gains. Having spent more than two years in bloody conflict, four oblasts plus Crimea and a declaration of neutrality from Ukraine doesn’t seem like much. Russia could be looking to take this opportunity to absorb all of Ukraine’s black sea territory towards the traditionally-Russian Odessa. This would further link it with the breakaway province of Transnistria in Moldova. 

This would bring it in line with Russia’s previous territory of Novorossiya and grant significantly more sea access than it currently has. It would also leave a broken and forever-weakened Ukraine on its border as a weak buffer state. Again falling in line with tradition, this would make Ukraine once again literally mean “Borderland.” Yes, there are lots of conditional verbs in these paragraphs, but the scenario makes sense on paper. 

Russia's constant need for warm-water ports would be satisfied, and its border security would be significantly increased. 

How the Trump administration would respond to such demands for territory is yet to be seen. My guess is that Trump doesn’t give a damn about Ukraine except for ending the bloodshed of the war while divesting the US from a bad investment. Eastern European borders change all the time anyway, so who cares? The US can lick its wounds and go home, leaving Europe to figure out its own security. Maintaining an empire has been a costly affair for the US, and many Americans have had enough of it. There’s plenty to fix domestically, anyway. 

The Unhinged View

These fuckers in the Biden administration are crazy, and they’re trying to start World War 3 to cover their asses and not go to prison or worse. They’re so spiteful they’d happily saddle the incoming administration with a horrific war. They’re so psychopathic they’d willingly burn down the whole world rather than admit defeat or be held to account. 

So too are the malignant narcissists running European NATO nations, not least of whom is the odious new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. They’ve sold their souls to try to get a hold of the sweet, sweet resources in Ukraine and Russia and they’ve failed miserably. They put everything on the line to support the war, including their pitiful military resources and their shambolic economies. Now, having bet and lost the farm, they’re utterly screwed and are falling for the Gambler’s Fallacy that one more roll of the dice can turn the whole thing around. 

Western leaders are also pissed off that Putin seized Rothschild assets in the form of the Yukos oil company and are out for blood. Nobody messes with the banking cartel, damn it! 

Putin and his buddies, knowing just how insane Western leadership is, take very seriously the threat of a sudden nuclear attack from the ATACMS or another weapon system. After all, the ATACMS are nuclear-capable missiles. The short range of the ATACMS give the Kremlin essentially no time at all to decide if an incoming missile is nuclear or not, so they have to assume it’s nuclear and respond in kind. This concept isn’t new: The lack of time to make decisions is precisely what the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987 was all about. Now we’re down to even less time with short-range missiles. Russia has now begun mass-producing mobile nuclear shelters.

Negotiating is clearly not an option because the word of NATO leaders is dogshit. “NATO won’t move one inch to the east, Mr. Gorbachev,” said James Baker III in 1990. How’d that turn out?

Since every war game involving nukes ends up in a general nuclear exchange, the whole northern hemisphere goes kablooie the next time an ATACMS missile is fired.

That is, unless the aliens we’ve been hearing about suddenly intervene in their UFOs and save us from a global nuclear catastrophe. Wouldn’t that be a neat introduction to E.T.? 

Which Way? 

Which way does this situation go? I’d love to take the optimistic view and see a peaceful drawdown in Ukraine under the Trump administration. More likely, I believe, is something like the realistic option (hence the name). The unhinged view is unfortunately not out of the question. Even if you’re not the praying sort, now might be a good time to send a mental postcard to the deity of your choice. 

As always, I’m curious to hear what readers think. What is the most likely outcome of this scenario in your opinion?