Victory for the Russians could now well be a consolidation of the areas they have annexed through the September 2022 referendum in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. As for Ukraine, it says that the liberation of all those areas as well as Crimea is the victory they are seeking.

In the meantime, the conflict is increasingly looking like a proxy war between the US and Russia. This has been underscored by US President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Kyiv. And now, amidst US warnings against aiding the Russian war effort, Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to visit Moscow in April.

The fighting grinds on. Neither side appears to have the wherewithal to compel the other side to concede. Despite their vast size and resources, the Russians have made trivial gains in their most recent offensives in the Donbas region. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are absorbing the attacks and waiting to launch their own offensive towards Mariupol.

The huge gap in the goals of the two antagonists makes any kind of a compromise difficult.

One solution is an outright and immediate ceasefire that freezes the conflict where it is. Probably, that is the point that both are aiming for this summer through their fresh offensives.

Each side may have to accept a tattered victory — Ukraine demonstrating its ability to take on the Russians, the latter indicating their determination to hold on to territories seized from Ukraine.

The larger picture also remains fuzzy. If Europe has managed to deal with its energy challenge through the winter of 2022, Russia, too has successfully used its oil and gas profits to ride out the difficulties its economy faced after the invasion and the western sanctions.

But income from energy, which provides 40 per cent of the Russian government’s income, is falling and could drop 25 per cent in the coming year as western sanctions sharpen their bite.

Meanwhile, the global community is at last getting worried that a prolongation of the conflict has dangerous, unpredictable consequences. Already, the world has had to pay an unanticipated price for what was thought to be a purely European affair.

The past year has seen significant geopolitical developments with implications not just for Russia but also its key friend China. The consolidation of the western alliance has derailed Chinese calculations in Europe. For Beijing, as for Moscow, relations with countries like Germany and those in central and eastern Europe are important from the economic and political perspectives.

Now, they support the US hard line on Russia, and China’s ‘no-limits’ partnership is not playing well in Europe. Even Japan has been forced to take major steps to re-arm and alter its pacifist policy and has made it clear that it will not accept the Chinese use of force in Taiwan.

There are three potential peace-making plans in the works:

China’s self-serving 12-point peace plan revealed at the Munich Security Conference was aimed at the European opinion, yet it undermined itself by Chinese diplomats blaming the war on western support to Ukraine. Beijing’s next moves could be revealed when Xi visits Russia later this year. So far, the response to the 12-point plan has been underwhelming.

The second potential peacemaker is India. New Delhi has been hoping to use the G20 presidency to find a leadership role in global affairs. India has been carefully feeling its way ahead and has maintained a neutral stance till now, one that is reluctantly accepted by the US and the EU.

However, India’s most recent vote of abstention at the UN General Assembly meeting on February 24 was a bit of a non sequitur. In its long-winded explanation of vote, it expressed concern over the loss of lives and destruction that the war had brought and spoke of the importance of international law and territorial integrity of states. It also invoked the Prime Minister’s statement that “today’s era is not an era of war.”

Yet, it abstained on a resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine” that passed 141 to seven against with 32 abstentions.

The G20 is unlikely to provide a platform for any putative Indian move on Ukraine. The Chinese insistence on keeping the word ‘war’ out of the joint communiqué of the G20 finance ministers last week suggests that Beijing will work to ensure that India does not cut into the diplomatic space it is possibly seeking to create for itself on Ukraine.

A third and potentially important route to dialogue has been opened up by the reported move of France, the UK and Germany to offer Ukraine a pact that would supply advanced weapons and assistance to Ukraine, but not the full benefits of a NATO membership. The idea is to enable a Ukrainian offensive as a prelude to negotiations which may involve a loss of some Ukrainian territory. The European move would also be a guarantee of sorts for the future security of Ukraine.

There is no report of the US signing on to the European plan. In Kyiv, Biden offered unconditional support without any talk of negotiations. But it is unlikely that the Europeans will move without American concurrence.

Of all the moves, this may be the most fruitful since the Europeans are crucial to Ukraine’s fight against Russia and minus their support, the Ukrainians will find the going difficult. As they say, he who pays the piper calls the tune. (Manoj Joshi, ORF)

The post Three potential peace-making plans on Ukraine in the works appeared first on IMR.

Assuming the missile has left the silo and is on the way to the target, the questions arise where it will strike and what would be the damage done. The target and the yield will be the focus of this article.

The ability to select the yield according to the target is a big advantage and will be fully utilized by the planners/commanders of the Strategic Rocket Forces.

Given below are the possible targets which the rocket forces might choose to target.

Destinations :

1.   Kiev
2.   Odessa
3.   Forward areas of Donetsk
4.   Black Sea
5.   Kherson

The yield would vary according to the targets enumerated above.

Kyiv : This target might have been on the list since days before the starting of the war. In order to eliminate the political leadership and top military commanders, Russia might use a more precise weapon of choice. The civilian losses will be extremely high if such an option is exercised. The yield of the device used for this might be under 100KT as they would be primarily targeting the leadership(civil and military) which is stationed underground.

Odessa : Russia might choose to go after the port in Odessa to permanently cripple Ukrainian exports. To go through with this, they might employ a device under 50KT.

Forward Areas of Donetsk : They might utilize the warheads with yield less than 25 KT to stop the advances of the Ukrainian army. They might use several of them on the battlefield. This would permanently deny the Ukrainians advance through the region.

Black Sea : The target which would most likely be hit would be No. 4 Black Sea. A detonation above the black sea would serve three purposes : i) Send a signal to all the parties to back out from Southern Ukraine and stall the counter offensive ii) Limit the amount of backlash and condemnation Russia will receive from the international community. iii) A detonation above the Sea will drastically limit the fallout and since wind might pick up towards the Russian side, they would be much safer. In this case, they might go ahead with a device with a yield exceeding 100KT, possibly 250KT to send a bigger message.

Kherson : This region might be of interest to the ground forces of both sides. They have been fighting fierce battles for the past many weeks. To cut off the Ukrainian reinforcements and the front line troops and to keep the artillery out of the reach of the rest of the region, they might target Ukrainian military detachments with smaller 10-15KT warheads in several locations.

Impact and Aftermath

A detonation over the Black Sea will have the least amount of damage to human life and practically no fallout. Russia might get chided by the international community and even the neutral parties will raise alarm and criticize the action. But that would be it. It will serve to scare Ukraine and NATO and will stop the counter offensive. Russia will be able to hold out much longer. The Russian military might be sent further to consolidate the gains and take over the vacated territories. Peace negotiations will start with terms favorable to Russia.

However, employing this device over Kyiv would entail a much more difficult situation for all. The Russians might have defeated Ukraine completely but winning the war will be pyrrhic. Civilian casualties would be very high. The high radiation fields will make rescue operations almost impossible.

This act will serve to distance all close allies of Russia and will further isolate Russia. Western nuclear forces would be ready for further escalation and prepare for pre-emptive strikes on Russian positions. There might be a possibility of severing Kaliningrad from the rest of Russia. Extensive conventional strikes by Western air forces would render Russian air defence ineffective and they will proceed to neutralize Russian nuclear platforms and command centres, the only option would be a fully fledged World War or Nuclear War.

A strike on Odessa would earn Russia the ire of the entire world. It will not only cripple Ukraine’s ability to export its produce but complicate issues like food security. This will serve to isolate Russia from Africa, Turkey and even China. Only conventional means would be used by Ukraine to deploy even more advanced western weaponry on Russians positions in Ukraine. NATO presence could be seen in Ukraine after such a strike in order to deter further nuclear strikes. Crimea would be cut off from the Russian Federation. As per the escalation vortex, cyber and space options will be employed by the West but they might not retaliate in a nuclear way. Crippling attacks on the Central government, military services and nuclear command and control centres would limit Russia’s options. The Russian economy would be in a complete disarray without the possibility of ever recovering.

Battlefield engagements on the front lines in Donetsk and Kherson will stop the advance of Ukrainian troops. It would inflict major military losses on Ukraine. The fallout would be immense and the region will become inhabitable for many centuries to come. Russian troops might advance in the fields of high radiation with specialized equipment and platforms. They would not be able to consolidate the gains due to radiation. This action will cause immediate cessation of all hostilities but Russia will suffer from the fallout, additional sanctions and a non-existent economy. Ukraine will have to give up the claim to its territories in the East and South. Retaliation will not stop there, the Russian Navy will face the brunt and lose its entire Black Sea fleet along with several submarines. Strong disapproval would be forthcoming from countries which may be neutral (China) in the form of sanctions from them as well.

In the end, the desired result is the de-escalation of the situation. Dialogue should be the way forward.

Assessment and Possibilities

In view of the foregoing, what are the possibilities about the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

In an interview with 60 Minutes, US President Joe Biden was asked what he would say to Russian President Vladimir Putin if he considered using tactical nuclear weapons. His response was “Don’t. Don’t. Don’t. It would change the face of war unlike anything since World War II.” In a televised address to the Russian people on September 21, Putin explicitly raised the specter of a nuclear conflict by saying, “Those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them.”

The majority of the experts believe that the possibility that Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon is low but is growing. As Putin runs out of options and feels worried about losing the war, the threat of nuclear escalation rises.

Some of them assessed that such an event is quite probable as a means of sending the Ukrainians a signal they should stop fighting and start talking, if not capitulate entirely. The experts assessed that the only reason Putin would take such a drastic action would be to force Kyiv to stop fighting and agree to Russian conditions.

However, some of the experts believed such a possibility remains highly improbable. According to them, “the Russian leadership has very little to gain from a military standpoint and everything to lose with regards to strategic consequences.”

In addition, the experts view such a possibility as a complete sea change in the course of the war. It would embolden the Ukrainian population even more, potentially shift opinions in Russia itself, and lead the international community into uncharted territory regarding the proper response. Some of the experts argued that such a decision would drastically diminish, if not eliminate, the remaining support Russia has in Europe and the world.

Experts believe that Putin is aware of the consequences of such a decision and is not deterred from using such a weapon. As one expert put it, Putin “is almost completely sure that the Western powers will never strike Russia with nukes because of the war in Ukraine,” and is therefore undeterred by a Western response.

The post Silo to Target and Aftermath appeared first on IMR.