Op-Ed: Escalation or desperation? Russia fires ballistic missile at Ukraine

Ukraine has long demanded authorization to use the US-made ATACMS missile against targets inside Russia – Copyright DoD/AFP John Hamilton

According to Ukraine, Russia fired the first ICBM ever used in warfare at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Two people were injured by the conventional warhead.

The missile was part of a barrage of various types of missiles including hypersonic missiles. Other sources say it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is a sort of scaled-down ICBM with a shorter range.

The attack comes after the US approved the use of long-range ATACMS missiles by Ukraine for strikes inside Russia.

The attack also came with a lot of rhetoric attached. Russia has now “updated” its nuclear doctrine to state that any non-nuclear power acting in partnership with a nuclear power is to be considered a “joint attack”.

This is more or less standard Russian dogma, emphasizing its nuclear capabilities. There is no comparison between an ATACMS missile and any sort of nuclear weapon.

Russia’s military situation in Ukraine is now such a total failure that rhetoric makes far more headlines than actual military achievements. Most of their “advances” in Donetsk are minuscule, taking back what they claim to be their own territory.

In an additional escalation, this time a real one, North Korean troops and weapons are said to be operating in Russia. Various sources state these troops are operating in the Kursk region and taking significant casualties. They don’t seem to be particularly combat-effective.

Despite claims by the incoming Trump administration, this situation is likely to be difficult to defuse. Russia is trying to save face. Its military has taken a severe beating for nearly three years.

Ukraine won’t back down. Ukraine has nothing to gain from a pseudo-peace which may simply turn into another attack after the Russian military has regrown itself. A lasting peace is beyond US capabilities to deliver.

The big loser in a failed peace deal would be the US. America would simply look weak and naïve, and in many ways simply stupid. It would also look as though the US was trying to save Russia, which is the exact opposite of saving face for Putin.

The highly skeptical rest of the world wouldn’t be impressed. It’s the wrong message to send to this planet’s other 8 billion people. Trump has a unique ability to damage America’s reputation and credibility in a few sentences. He spent most of his first term annoying America’s allies making baseless statements about them.

He’s not seen as a “strong leader” outside the US. He’s seen as a highly personally compromised figurehead at best and chronically incompetent on average. He certainly can’t even pretend to lead the rest of the world social media propaganda notwithstanding.

That’s a big shift in the wrong direction. America was in fact a leader of the free world. Under Trump, it’s likely to be purely antagonistic and entirely insular, with no trust.

Add to this self-inflicted mess the various other messages about tariffs, deportations, and democracy in general, and the US could lose just about all of the goodwill of the last century in a month or so.

The winner would be China. In comparison to a tariff-addled, backward-looking, fact-ignoring America and a crippled Russia, China can only look good.

Nothing can save Russia from the consequences of this idiotic self-inflicted war. Europe is rearming. China can pull the plug whenever it wants. It’s game over in so many ways.

America can only be “great” by enforcing a just and permanent peace.

Let’s see who the vertebrates are in this scenario.

___________________________________________________

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.