State of Emergency

The frightening real reason for long-range rockets in Ukraine

Just when we thought the resolution of a major global conflict was near, it got much worse. President-elect Donald Trump vowed to end the war in Ukraine within days; but on Nov. 17, sitting President Joe Biden authorized the Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia. This was a perplexing, unexpected move for everyone.

Why the sudden escalation? I think the decision has nothing to do with current realities on the battlefield and tactical considerations. I’ll lay out a scenario that’s certainly controversial or even provocative – but that might be closer than you think. I’m sure you haven’t seen it anywhere else, and even if you disagree, or think I’ve gone nuts, at least it’s very entertaining. As always, feel free to drop me a ‘like’ or comment.

On Sunday, November 17, U.S. President Joe Biden authorized the Ukraine to use a U.S. weapons system called ATACMS against Russia. ATACMS, short for Army Tactical Missile Systems, are rockets with a range of about 350 kilometers. Officially, the approval came in response to Russia’s deployment of troops from North Korea.

The New York Times hypothesized in an article posted on the same day that Ukraine was going to use the missiles in defense of Ukrainian troops in Russia’s Kursk region. But Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, didn’t hesitate to engage targets deep in Russian territory. Six ATACMS rockets were fired at a military facility in the Bryansk region, of which five were intercepted and the sixth damaged according to Russian reports.

(Source: THE ECONOLOG/ Reuters)

President Biden’s approval of ATACMS use wasn’t just a gradual expansion of the Ukraine war,  but a new level of escalation. According to Russian military doctrine, if the country is attacked by a nuclear power, even if the attack is carried out with conventional arms, Russia is entitled to respond with a nuclear strike. The ATACMS attack lifts the conflict to a much higher threat level. And you shouldn’t believe that Bryansk was chosen randomly; it is exactly in the trajectory to Moscow.

Safe spaces

I still remember, it was right on the day when I was supposed to kick off at an east coast university. My dad woke me up early to tell me a coup had been staged against Michail Gorbachev in Moscow; all hell might break loose now (great way to wake up!).

Gorbachev was the architect of Glasnost and Perestroika, the single most important peace initiative since ending the Second World War which also disbanded the Soviet Union. German chancellor Helmuth Kohl approached him with another daring proposal: Would Gorbachev agree to the reunification of Germany? Germany had been split after the Second World War when the Russian-occupied territory became a separate country. Uniting the country had long been a dream for Germans. Gorbachev agreed, but under a condition: As Germany was strengthening, and NATO with it, Russia needed safety pledges. No enlargement of Nato with countries on the Russian border. No western armament of those countries, least of all of Ukraine.

The concept of a safety perimeter around countries had gained in importance in the nuclear age. For the U.S., it used to be simpler: Canada in the north and Mexico in the south were trusted partners. Soviet encroachment there was essentially unthinkable. But in October 1962, intelligence analysts made an alarming finding on arial reconnaissance pictures of Cuba, an ally to the Soviet Union at the time. Cuba was constructing missile launch silos just 60 miles south of Florida. This was a huge breach of American security. The flight time of a rocket from Cuba to all major east coast cities including Washington and New York was no more than ten minutes. Real-time satellite reconnaissance didn’t exist in those days; the U.S. had to rely on a network of radar installations across the Arctic, Greenland, and the UK to detect ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) launched from Russia. Obviously, a launch base in Cuba was going to circumvent real-time early warning systems, leaving no lead time to warn anybody or prepare a counterstrike. Missile bases that close to the U.S. were absolutely unacceptable.

After hectic, around-the-clock planning and scenario analysis over 13 days, President John F. Kennedy ordered the U.S. Navy to enforce a naval blockade about 500 nautical miles from the Cuban coast. The Navy faced off a Russian convoy, accompanied by Russian submarines, which was going to deliver construction supplies and possibly ICBMs. Who would blink first? Would anyone fire out of panic or even a stupid mistake?

The event marked the first peak of the cold war between NATO and the Soviet Union. Why did the USSR go that far in escalation? Wasn’t it totally mad to violate the M.A.D. doctrine (mutually assured destruction), which was supposed to maintain a balance?

Turns out, there was a lot of structured thinking behind. The USSR knew at the time that the U.S. had placed nuclear missiles at launch bases in Turkey. In behind-the-scenes negotiations to resolve the Cuba Crisis, the U.S. agreed to pull out the missiles from Turkey. The whole crisis, in the end, was a charade to get rid of rockets in the Soviet Union’s backyard.

The Cuba Crisis drives home two key issues:

1. The integrity of a safe boundary is of paramount importance. Sufficient reaction time is needed to avoid an all-out escalation and to contain conflicts

2. There’s often very well-defined but hidden strategy behind apparently mad escalation steps

NATO expansion

The 1990 promises of James Baker III to Gorbachev didn’t last long. Already in 1999, three former Eastern Bloc countries joined NATO: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Ukraine was put on the map for NATO membership. European centrist countries watched with growing unease how NATO was pushing against the Russian security perimeter. At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest/ Romania, France and Germany opposed a formal MAP (membership action plan). The meeting ended with a compromise declaration that Ukraine (and Georgia) would eventually become NATO members, but without specifying a timeline.

Inside Ukraine, the enthusiasm for membership slowed down markedly under President Yanukovych who recognized opposition to NATO in large parts of the population. Remaining neutral was the best way to keep the peace in Ukraine, a country which lacked strong internal cohesion due to its ethnic diversity and a Russian majority in the east of the country. However, Yanukovych was ousted in the Maidan uprising of 2014. NATO membership became a constitutional goal, and Ukraine was back on track for a destination with was utterly unacceptable for Russia, like Soviet rockets on Cuba were for the U.S.

Power plays

The war in Ukraine has dragged on for 1,000 days, but President-elect Donald Trump vowed to end it very quickly.

Why did the Biden administration throw such an unexpected curveball in the last weeks of his presidency? Why the massive escalation? If Germany now kicks in its Taurus cruise missile system, as a leading candidate in Germany’s upcoming snap elections announced, Moscow is within reach from Ukraine.

(German Taurus cruise missile with a range of at least 500 kilometers)

As I noted above, escalations in particular among superpowers don’t come out of nowhere. They follow a very specific, strategic logic. So let’s add another question: Who is the beneficiary of an escalation?

The political establishment in Washington has failed on all three key objectives in the war: weakening Russia economically, politically, and militarily. But the conflict opened another window of opportunity for it.

Donald Trump, winner of the elections, is an anti-establishment figure. He is not part of the military-industrial complex in Washington. He is not part of the 5-eyes power structure (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand). He promised to roll back the sweeping changes in society, the media, business, and politics, most of them on a trajectory to reduce freedom of speech and repress individuality and identity, in increasingly authoritarian, control-obsessed regimes. Is there still a way for the establishment to stop him?

There is. If the U.S. baits Russia into a heavy-handed response, possibly even using a tactical nuke, this would give the current U.S. government authority to declare a new national emergency, which in turn will void many legal limitations of its power.

‘National emergency’ powers were supposed to allow the president to act quickly to address threats to the country. Abraham Lincoln used a national emergency to suspend the habeas corpus act; Franklin D. Roosevelt, to detain U.S. citizens of Japanese descent; George W. Bush to mobilize troops for the Iraq war. Because those extra powers were quite convenient and the language in laws governing them broad, the use cases have been extended and prolonged. The Vietnam War was conducted under a national emergency proclaimed by President Truman in the Korea War.

Currently, about 40 national emergency programs are in operation, from sanctions on persons involved in drug trade or humanitarian crises like in Ethiopia, to technology protection.

Because the laws governing national emergencies are so broad, politicians have spent a lot of time investigating the outer limits in a series of directives called Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs). The PEADs were launched by President Eisenhower to prepare for, guess what, a Soviet nuclear attack.

Very little is known about what was tested in the PEADs. But considering the power-hungry political establishment, better assume the worst.

In 1987, The Miami Herald reported on truly outrageous contingency plans which a National Security Council staffer, Oliver North, had developed. North, a Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, later became notorious for his role in selling arms to Iran and sending sales proceeds to the Contras in Nicaragua.

According to The Miami Herald, North worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a secret national-emergency plan to suspend the Constitution, turn control of the U.S. over to FEMA, and appoint military commanders - an unfathomable breach of constitutional laws.

In addition, the Communication Act of 1934 allows the president to take control of wire communications. It’s not a big leap of imagination to include Internet traffic into the scope of this Act.

You think I’ve gone nuts?

Well, let me point out I didn’t invent those scenarios. They were thought up during the most recent presidential transition in 2020, during which some democrats developed worst-case scenarios how President Trump might cling to power. Their 2020 plan included all the elements I described above: provocation and escalation with an enemy country (in 2020: Iran) to declare a national emergency; Trump invoking section 706 of the Communication Act to take control of Internet traffic; he shuts down left-leaning websites, intimidates voters, and unleashes riots for which he blames protesters. Add the nightmare scenarios which Oliver North and his cohort have developed.

The playbook has been written. Now in the role of the incumbent, the government just needs to pull it out of the drawers. The escalation with Russia looks a lot like a first step.

Again, it may seem like a stretch, but I think the Washington establishment, backed by most governments in the western world, will stop at nothing to continue and enforce their agenda.

Happy to hear your thoughts,

All the best,

John