(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
For Russia, the war is on Ukraine about the existence of the Russian state. A western presence in Ukraine 50 miles from Moscow would make it impossible for Russia to defend oneself. Since 2008, Moscow has said such a presence would be a declaration of war. For Moscow, the Ukraine war is about defense, not conquest. But for the West, the war is about Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine and about Ukraine's right to choose an alliance. Both sides now seem prepared to escalate the war. Ultimately, we have to count on a nuclear war.
A neutral Ukraine
Russia has always demanded a buffer zone, a neutral Ukraine, which was confirmed by both presidents Zelensky and by his chief negotiator David Arakhamia. That was the only requirement. "Everything else was cosmetic," Arakhamia said. Russia would not have threatening Western weapons systems near Moscow, while Western countries say that "we do not threaten anyone", but the Russians do not trust that. When the Western countries did not accept a neutral Ukraine, and when from 2019-21 they abandoned the Minsk Agreement, which was supposed to guarantee a neutral Ukraine, and continued the war against the Russian-speaking Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, Russia entered the war to ensure "a neutral status of Ukraine".
Many Norwegian politicians seem to believe that more weapons for Ukraine will make it possible for the country to win.
Many Norwegian politicians seem to believe that more weapons for Ukraine will make it possible for the country to win. But if we look at the balance of power between Russia and a Western-backed Ukraine, a Ukrainian victory will not be possible, not even in a nuclear war. Russia has more than enough new weapons systems. They are superior in the air and have far more artillery and precision guided missiles, but above all they have a far larger population. Russian forces are now, day by day, taking more and more territory and more and more Ukrainian soldiers. If the war continues like this, there won't be any Ukrainian men left in the end.
Two interpretations
In Russia, until now, there have been at least two interpretations of how to proceed. It Firstly, and the dominant thought has been represented by Vladimir Putin. He has wanted to continue with the conventional war until the West and Ukraine realize that they will lose both territory and population – since the threshold for escalating to nuclear war is very high. Both sides have continued to escalate the war as if nuclear weapons do not exist.
The Secondly, the opinion has been represented by the former Russian presidential adviser Sergej Karaganov. He believes that nuclear weapons must be deployed now to show that these weapons exist "to save us from a global catastrophe". The losses in today's war in Ukraine, not least on the Ukrainian side, could exceed one million men. An escalation will kill even more. It is impossible to continue with such losses, he says. The West must be made to understand that the war for Russia is not about conquering a country, but about securing a buffer zone to ensure the existence of the Russian state.
An outright war?
Putin has so far said that he will only respond with nuclear weapons after a similar Western attack or if the existence of the state is threatened.
The drones may have been sent from Norway or Finland.
But in May 2024, Newsweek wrote that Ukraine had attacked three strategic radar installations deep inside Russia. These are facilities used for early warning against US strategic nuclear missiles. The ammunition warehouse in Toropets near the Latvian border was attacked with a drone in September. They stored tens of thousands of tons of ammunition and missiles. The attack probably required intelligence from the United States. The drone may have been sent from Latvia. A base on the Kola Peninsula for aircraft carrying strategic nuclear bombs was attacked in July, and the Russians shot down two drones over the Kola Peninsula in September, almost 2000 kilometers north of Ukraine. They may have been sent from Norway or Finland. The Russians suspect that several attacks directly involve Western countries. It has become necessary to revise previous doctrines.
Russia can then respond to such attacks by taking out bases in Great Britain or perhaps American bases in the Russian vicinity.
Putin stated on September 12 that Western long-range missiles are guided by the Americans and the British against targets in Russia. If the United States gives the green light for these missiles, it is not only Ukraine, but the United Kingdom and the United States that are at war with Russia, Putin said. We will then have a direct war between the Western powers and Russia. Russia can then respond to such attacks by taking out bases in Great Britain or perhaps American bases in the Russian vicinity.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, says that the Russians have made it clear to the Pentagon that they will deploy conventional missiles against targets in the US and Europe if the West launches such attacks against Russia. Russia will use missiles that fly at 32 km/h (000 km/s). They release a kinetic energy equivalent to a small nuclear bomb ("Kinetic Energy Weapon"). The Pentagon took this seriously, and it caused President Joe Biden to retreat the next day. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was not allowed to deploy British Storm Shadow missiles against targets deep inside Russia.
A global nuclear war
Karaganov said the day before Putin's comments that "any massive attack against Russia gives us the right to respond with nuclear weapons." Karaganov's argument is that such a development of the war as we see now will develop into a Russo-Western great war, which will probably lead to a global nuclear war. According to Karaganov, it is then better to deploy a nuclear bomb against a state that supports Ukraine, in order to make the West understand that you mean business. Our generation of journalists and politicians, who have not experienced the Cold War, act as if nuclear weapons do not exist. One has lost the fear. "The credibility of deterrence must be restored," says Karaganov.
At the same time, Russia is revising its nuclear weapons doctrine, and there have been exercises to deploy tactical nuclear weapons. On September 25, President Putin said that Russia will update its nuclear weapons doctrine: "Aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear power [...] with the support of a nuclear power will be perceived as a joint attack." Moscow will "consider" deploying nuclear weapons if it has "credible information" about a missile or air attack that "crosses our state's border". A conventional "attack against Russia and Belarus" could be answered with nuclear weapons. On September 29, Russia declared the existence of the new doctrine. Like the Western doctrine, the Russian one now allows for the first use of nuclear weapons. The risk of a nuclear war has increased, which was the motive behind this year's peace prize ceremony.
We have to reckon that Moscow will respond to attacks with Storm Shadow against Russia, and it is then not unlikely that they will knock out British bases and American air bases in Russia's vicinity, with "Kinetic Energy Weapons". If Western countries want to respond with nuclear weapons in such a case, Russia will respond in kind, perhaps taking out Norwegian-American air bases that threaten Russia. This was earlier Russian military planning, and it is likely that it still applies. But you will hardly go in with ground forces, as in Finnmark, unless there is a major war between the USA and Russia. Perhaps it is wise to try to avoid such attacks and such development while it is still possible. We are apparently sleepwalking into a major war.
