Conventional Winter (For Now)

Ukraine bulletin

The day before the 18–19 November 2024 meeting of the “Group of Twenty” (G20) major economies in Brazil, still-President Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles to strike deeper into Russian territory, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy. The announcement followed months of Ukrainian appeals for permission from NATO allies to use Western missiles in support of its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region—and it came only twelve days after the victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with the once-again-President-elect having claimed for almost two years that he could end the conflict within 24 hours.

After Biden gave his blessing to Ukraine’s strikes within Russian territory, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned immediately that such attacks would be met with retaliation and risked escalating the conflict deeper into Europe. Nonetheless, the Kiev regime fired U.S. missiles two days after Biden’s announcement at an arms depot in the Bryansk region, about 110 km inside the Russian Federation. Though Russia claimed to have intercepted five of six missiles—and U.S. sources claimed it intercepted two of eight—the strike resulted in secondary explosions from munitions, though without any casualties reported. A day later, Ukraine followed up the U.S. ATACMS missiles with a volley of the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles fired into the Kursk region.

Product of stable diffusion (“Missiles streak through snowfall in the dark sky of a winter's night.”)

In response, Putin approved updates to his country’s nuclear doctrine that lower the threshold for using atomic weapons, allowing for the use of nuclear weapons in response to attacks from non-nuclear states that are backed by nuclear powers, large-scale conventional strikes involving missiles, drones, or aircraft, and threats to Russian sovereignty or allies such as Belarus. Additionally, any aggression by a member of a coalition will be treated as an attack by the entire group.

Interestingly, those Russian allies might now include the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“North Korea”), soldiers from which reportedly joined Russian forces in the Kursk region earlier this month, whom an unnamed Kiev official claimed have already clashed with Ukrainian forces. These reports came only a week after North Korea tested its longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and, according to South Korean military intelligence, had begun preparing for its seventh test of nuclear weapons.

The Kremlin called its country’s updated nuclear doctrine “timely” and reflective of the current geopolitical situation, urging other countries to analyze it thoroughly. While Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Russia’s stance against nuclear war, Ukraine has criticized the changes as “nuclear saber-rattling” intended to deter Western support.

However, as the Russian counterattack demonstrated, that saber-rattling need not be nuclear: a test of its new hypersonic nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, struck a military facility in Dnipro, marking a sharp escalation in the war. The missile, reaching speeds of Mach 11 and carrying six conventional warheads with submunitions, reportedly destroyed the subterranean Yuzhmash missile manufacturing plant responsible for assembling weapons using Western components relabeled as “made in Ukraine” to shield NATO suppliers. The attack’s impact was so powerful that buildings kilometers away were damaged, and it destroyed the city’s water supply infrastructure.

Still, the successful test of the Oreshnik missile did little to deter Ukraine’s Western allies, with the French Foreign Minister confirming that Ukraine can fire its French Scalp missiles—identical to the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles—into Russian territory according to “the logics of self-defense.”

Given all of last week’s developments, we’d certainly forgive you for fearing these will surely lead to nuclear confrontation. But others are more optimistic (if we can call it that): the pseudonymous Rurik Skywalker suggests in The Slavland Chronicles that Russia’s responses are more rhetorical than substantive. Despite fears from U.S. officials that Russia might retaliate, the author believes that Putin’s threats are just bluffs and that NATO has nothing to fear. While political dynamics within the U.S. might push for further escalation, Skywalker sees no real confirmation of these developments: despite Russia’s threats, he still doubles down on his earlier depiction of Putin as unlikely to escalate beyond limited retaliation, given a lack of major military mobilization.

In addition, these recent escalations follow rumors of secret talks between Ukraine and Russia, which Skywalker reports have focused on practical issues like prisoner exchanges and energy attacks, and aimed at preserving profits for oligarchs. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s power stems entirely Western financial support rather than domestic political backing—making him unlikely to agree to peace talks—Skywalker argues that Russia's goal is not to defeat Zelensky, but to restore power to pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. He therefore questions the sincerity of Russia’s rhetoric, viewing the conflict as driven by elite power struggles, and predicts further escalation between Russia and Ukraine. That said, even after the Oreshnik missile strike, Skywalker seems to see little reason to believe the conflict will broaden into Europe or the West, critiquing American commentators like Jackson Hinkle and the retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor as members of a cult of personality worshipping Putin, whose respective predictions of Zelensky’s imminent death or of a Russian nuclear strike in Europe simply ignore the evidence.

Of course, it surely profits many of those involved to keep the conflict going, with the U.S. alone having provided over $56 billion in military aid since 2022 and having just forgiven $4.7 billion in loans. Add in more than $9 billion from the UK and more than $36 billion from the EU (again, just in military aid) and it seems certain the Western military-industrial complex has been profiting handsomely—not to mention corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.

Product of stable diffusion (“Missiles streak through snowfall in the dark sky of a winter's night.”)

However, Skywalker also offers reason for concern about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in the Ukraine-Russia conflict following Trump’s resumption of the American presidency, suggesting that the transfer of TNWs to Ukraine by NATO allies is increasingly likely, given the historical pattern of escalating military aid that has already included tanks, artillery, and missiles. The transfer of TNWs would represent a natural development in Western support. A Trump administration, Skywalker predicts, would likely intensify rather than de-escalate the conflict, describing his potential cabinet is described as the most hawkish in U.S. history, with figures like Sebastian Gorka signaling an even more aggressive stance. However, Skywalker warns that the introduction of TNWs could provoke a nuclear response from Russia, leading to catastrophic consequences. NATO’s apparent disregard for “red lines” is interpreted as evidence that all escalation options, including nuclear confrontation, are now on the table.

Skywalker also speculates on NATO’s broader strategic intentions, suggesting they may aim to dismember the Russian Federation, incite internal conflicts, or compel Moscow to align against China. TNWs may serve as a possible tool to pressure Russia into submission and achieve larger geopolitical goals. While acknowledging uncertainty about NATO’s exact objectives, Skywalker argues that the conflict’s trajectory under Biden points toward further escalation, viewing Trump as unlikely to alter the course—despite his vague rhetoric about diplomatic negotiations—and instead as someone who might amplify the risk of nuclear engagement, with the future transfer of TNWs to Ukraine representing a potential tipping point.

Western commentators seem to agree, acknowledging that despite Biden’s last-minute aid efforts, the U.S. and Europe have been exploring alternative security guarantees. These include stockpiling advanced weaponry for response to future Russian assaults, and—perhaps predictably, though much more alarmingly—supplying nuclear weapons to Ukraine, which commentators describe as “deterrence” as opposed to obvious escalation.

Certainly, developments in the Ukraine conflict over just the past week underscore the profound complexities and dangers of this geopolitical crisis, with escalating rhetoric, advanced weaponry, and shifting alliances all heightening the stakes. The authorization of long-range missile use by the Biden administration, the updating of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, and the deployment of weapons like the Oreshnik missile reflect a deepening entrenchment by all parties. But despite warnings of potential nuclear confrontation, there remain reasons to believe the conflict revolves more around calculated posturing rather than a genuine march toward global escalation.

At its heart, the war appears driven less by ideological clashes and more by pragmatic power struggles, including oligarchic interests and strategic positioning within broader geopolitical frameworks. As the Western military-industrial complex continues to reap significant profits while Ukraine remains reliant on external financial and military support, the prospect of resolution seems increasingly remote. Instead, the conflict risks dragging on as a protracted proxy war—at least until such time as NATO provides Ukraine with TNWs. While fears of escalation into Europe or nuclear conflict persist even without such a transfer, the current trajectory suggests (for now) a localized increase in intensity rather than outright global confrontation. However, with so many actors pursuing divergent interests, the path forward remains fraught with peril. But in the meantime, keep tuning in to Radio Free Pizza for any excuse to remain optimistic despite all the geopolitical uncertainty that these apparent escalations introduce.