NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said a war between Russia and the Alliance is “a real possibility.” In an interview with the Norwegian journalist Anne Lindmo, Stoltenberg told, “I fear that the war in Ukraine will get out of control, and spread into a major war between NATO and Russia,” adding that “such a scenario could be avoided but that the threat was there”. Russia apparently wants to take advantage of imminent winter conditions. At the same time, it becomes clear that on the eve of marking its first year, the war will go on ‘as long as the West endure.’
“We will see whether spring arrives after the end of winter,” a Presidential Security and Foreign Policy Board Member, Prof. Nurşin Güney told Harici, adding that ‘promises not to enlarge NATO were broken. Following the colorful revolutions and similar processes, we see this messy war. The West made mistakes at the start of the Ukraine War. Russia made mistakes in breaching its commitment to protecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity under the Budapest Memorandum.’
So, do these mistakes evolve into a conflict that could lead to nuclear war? How will Europe’s long winter pass? How should the NATO chief’s “concerns” be interpreted?
“Too early to end the war”
To summarize the front-line situation, the Russian army withdrew from certain parts of Donetsk and Kherson. Kerch Bridge was targeted. Russia moved up a gear after the sinking of Moscow, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, and the battleships in Sevastopol were attacked.
Moreover, with the help of its ever-increasing Western-origin weaponry, Ukraine started to attack the inner regions of Russia. In the first week of December, three Russian military air bases hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian-Ukrainian border were hit by Ukraine. Relatedly, US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price was forced to say, “We have not provided Ukraine with weapons to use inside of Russia. We’ve been very clear that these are defensive supplies. The President has made it clear before. We are not enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders; we are not encouraging Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.” Since October, Russia, on the other hand, has started particularly targeting Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
With the coming of the dead of winter, attacks targeting civilian infrastructure may have new consequences on the front. “Russia is trying to subvert Ukraine’s determination and capacity to fight by targeting its vital infrastructures,” Prof. Dr. Nurşin Güney commented on the Russian tactical shift.
The West’s limit to fulfilling Ukraine’s winter demands
Viewing the West in two separate clusters, Europe and the USA, Prof. Dr. Nurşin Güney made the following observation based on a recent visit to the USA:
“There is no major disturbance in the USA, and the system works out. The US doesn’t feel like there is a war in Ukraine. Russia is not dependent on the Western market. It can make up for its losses here and has the financial and natural resources necessary to be self-sufficient. More harm will befall the European Union (EU). The general population will be affected. In Europe, there are protests occasionally. There is no indication that the US will change its anti-Russian policy. The United States aims to limit Russia economically and militarily.”
Highlighting how the shale gas revolution helped the USA attain energy self-sufficiency, Güney emphasizes that the exact opposite scenario is seen for the EU. According to Güney, claiming that this war has been going on thanks to the support of the West, “the resilience of Europe and Ukraine” will be crucial to the war’s outcome. Güney stressed that Moscow has not yet utilized its total capacity in this war while stating that he disagrees with the remarks that depict Russia as a “total loser.”
Speaking at the humanitarian aid conference in Paris, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmihal requested the Patriot and other modern air defense systems be provided to his country to increase their capacity to resist and to protect their energy infrastructure. The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has asked Europe for six things to help the country get through the winter. On the list are requests to fix energy infrastructure, gas turbines, pistons, and help pay for 2 billion cubic meters of gas. The 6th item is coordinating the “Paris mechanism” in response to what Zelensky called “Russian energy terrorism.” Prime Minister Shmihal requested an urgent budget of $1 billion for infrastructure repairs.
How far can Russia withdraw?
The dialogue mechanisms between Brussels and Moscow became wholly broken as a result of the Ukraine War. The sabotage of the Northern Current hit a fatal blow to the economic relations that developed on the foundation of energy. The main concern now is whether this tension will expand into a Russia-West War or whether Russia will resort to tactical nuclear weapons as part of its defense doctrine.
In fact, within a “special military operation,” Russia had not attacked the civilian infrastructure until recently. However, since the four regions were formally recognized as Russian territory, tensions started to escalate in a different way. According to the Kremlin’s most recent statement, “The Ukrainian side needs to take into account these realities that have developed over all this time. And these realities say that new subjects (the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia) have appeared in Russia, and they appeared as a result of the referendum that took place there. Without taking into account these new realities, any kind of progress is impossible” In response to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s withdrawal proposal of the Russian troops from Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Peskov said, “This is out of the question.”
Since Moscow now regards the four Ukrainian regions as Russian territory, its counteroffensive responses to attacks targeting these regions are changing. Given the crossing of these new red lines by the Ukrainian forces, the strikes reaching into Russia, and “no way of being defeated for Russia as a great power” coalesced, the question of whether tactical nuclear weapons will be used began to be asked more frequently.
Regarding Russia’s limits of “withdrawal” as a significant nuclear power, Prof. Güney commented, “Should loses one party at one point, it can use tactical nuclear weapons. It is not ‘not likely’ to use them. In an effort to avoid losing, these tactical nuclear powers are very possibly to resort. Ultimately realizing that everything was lost, Russia will likely turn to tactical nuclear power”.
Pointing out Russia’s “ability to challenge the status quo,” Güney added that the war has not yet ended, and NATO and Russia do not currently have any intentions to start a new war at this stage. However, as of early December, Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s warnings of a growing risk of a nuclear war threat have sparked discussions over this subject. At the Russian Human Rights Council meeting, Putin said, “If it does not use them first, then it will not be the second to use them either, because in the case of a nuclear strike on our territory, our capabilities will be significantly limited.” Following these words, an interesting analysis came from Israel.
Jerusalem Post analysis: Ukraine should not be given nuclear weapons
The article by national security analyst Ehud Eilam also served in the Israeli army for a while, is entitled “Countries shouldn’t give Ukraine any nuclear weapons.” Having published six books in security studies, Ehud Eliam explains why Ukraine should not be given tactical nuclear weapons by the US, the UK, or another NATO member. According to the Israeli security analyst, it might deter Russia from becoming more aggressive in Ukraine, let alone using nuclear weapons there, but this is extremely dangerous.
In the analysis examining extreme scenarios, it is stated that “Ukraine is quite a new state with a fragile democracy, NATO might not fully understand the Ukrainian decision-making process, and it is not clear how much Zelensky can control the military in regard to nuclear weapons.” Additionally, it is mentioned that the “frustration” in Ukraine might coerce NATO to join the fight by using nuclear weapons against Russia. According to military analyst Ehud Eilam, “The odds of a Russian attack on a NATO member would increase if NATO gives Ukraine nuclear weapons.”
In conclusion, the author warns that giving Ukraine tactical nuclear weapons without endangering NATO will foster a situation where these weapons can spread quickly. If such a step is taken, he writes, many NATO members like Poland might demand to have their own nuclear weapons due to “fear of Russia,” as well as the Arab Gulf States against Iran.
Turkey’s apparent balance policy
Turkey is trying to weather the storm at the helm of a “balance” ship. In a letter, EU High Representative Josep Borrell said, “Turkey’s policy of not joining the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia is a cause for great concern,” adding, “We expect all candidate countries, including Turkey, to comply with the agreed measures against Russia.”
Güney responds to the query of what Turkey’s limit of balance or there is really a limit is as follows:
“Turkey does not believe in sanctions, and so far, no results have been achieved with sanctions. How long have sanctions been imposed on Iran? They are now getting close to producing their own nuclear weapons. In addition, we face sanctions from our ally. Moreover, Israel and the EU also have very close ties. Israel also does not impose sanctions on Russia. Why does Israel not receive inquiries aimed at Turkey? Also, we are not an EU member. We are a candidate member. Such legal liability does not apply to us.”
Provided a step on “written security guarantees” that Russia initially raised, it is likely to sit at a negotiation table. However, it is next to impossible that Russia will send its troops on a Christmas leave, as Kyiv demands, given that Russia is at its strongest in the months of the “general winter,” its steadfast elder commander.
