Long-range missiles, nuclear doctrine, global conflict… These six days of the war in Ukraine which are shaking the world

Long-range missiles, nuclear doctrine, ballistic missile, world war… In the space of a week, the war in Ukraine has experienced a worrying escalation. A strategic acceleration for the two belligerents, who fear the return of Donald Trump and his desire to impose negotiations.

Green light for long-range missiles

Donald Trump's return to office in January could undermine the support of the United States, one of kyiv's main allies. Faced with this danger, the current administration and its President Joe Biden have implemented the use of long-range ATACMS missiles on Russian territory, deliveries of antipersonnel mines and the payment of a tranche of aid of 6 billion dollars. Great Britain also authorized the use on Russian territory of Storm Shadow and on the French side, of Scalp. If missiles had been used in Donbass or Crimea, this time they reached Russian territory.

A first? During the Kursk operation in August, they were already used unofficially, several military experts report. On November 19, six ATACMS missiles were fired towards the Bryansk border region. An ammunition depot would have been targeted. The attack was confirmed on condition of anonymity by American and Ukrainian sources. The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that this strike was largely destroyed by the anti-aircraft system. On November 21, a combined attack of British-made Storm Shadow and Himars missiles also struck military installations in Russia.

United States, Great Britain, France: cobelligerent powers

ATACMS, the Army's tactical missile system, are American ballistic missiles with a range of 300 kilometers. Their warhead can contain around 170 kilograms of explosives. They can be fired from the Himars and M270 mobile launchers which were supplied by the United States, Great Britain and Germany. The question remains about the quantity available to the Ukrainians.

However, their use reveals direct involvement of the United States. “To achieve such a strike, they intervene throughout the process: intelligence, target files, guidance… American ground personnel are certainly needed on the ground to take care of loading tactical data,” explains the deputy director of the Franco-Russian Observatory, Igor Delanoë. The same involvement is necessary for the British Storm Shadow and French Scalp systems, which are fired from aircraft. Cobelligerence becomes real.

If these strikes will slow down Russian logistics, they do not appear capable of disrupting the course of the current war, according to several military personnel. The quantity of this type of weapon remains limited. Despite everything, Vladimir Putin's message is clear: “From that moment on, and as we have previously emphasized on numerous occasions, the regional conflict provoked by the West in Ukraine took on a global dimension. » In his speech on November 21, the Russian president warned: “We consider ourselves within our rights to use our weapons against the military installations of countries that authorize the use of their weapons against our installations. »

A new nuclear doctrine in Moscow…

Russia is participating in this escalation. Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, recent months have demonstrated bombing phases of unparalleled intensity. On November 17 alone, more than 200 Russian missiles and drones struck the entire country. These strikes targeted numerous energy sites on the eve of winter. Russia is seeking to increase its territorial gains in anticipation of possible negotiations imposed by Donald Trump at the end of January. On the ground, we are witnessing an intensification of fighting, also before the winter period. The Russian army is thus seeking to recover a large part of Donbass, and in particular the Donetsk region. Despite the crumbling of the front, the Ukrainian system managed to resist.

In its response, Moscow wanted to make an impact with two acts: the entry into force of a new nuclear doctrine and the firing of an intermediate ballistic missile. The decree presented last September by President Vladimir Putin was signed on November 19 to formalize the evolution of the doctrine which dated from 2020. It stipulates the expansion of the use of atomic weapons in the event of “the launch of ballistic missiles against Russia” and in the event of a “massive” air assault carried out by a non-nuclear country, but supported by a nuclear power. Clear references to Ukraine and the United States. Previously, Russian nuclear doctrine spoke of use in the event of an attack likely to call Russia's existence into question.

The other warning therefore came from the firing of a “medium-range” ballistic missile on November 21 on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro launched from the Astrakhan oblast, in Russia, nearly 800 km away. Before the strike, Moscow had warned Washington through nuclear risk reduction channels. “The strike seems intended more as a signal to the West and a dissuasive measure against further ATACMS fire than for an operational purpose. Pure strategic rhetoric,” believes General Olivier Kempf. If Westerners ever had any doubt about the message, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov explained on November 22: “The main message is that the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries that produce missiles, supply them to Ukraine and then participate in strikes on Russian territory cannot go without reaction from Russia. »

…and in Washington

Russia is not the only one to have rewritten its nuclear doctrine. Days before Vladimir Putin signed the executive order, the United States Department of Defense presented an updated nuclear weapons strategy report, known as Report 491, to Congress on November 15. This involves re-examining approaches to nuclear deterrence in the context of the increasing nuclear capabilities of China and Russia.

“This report reflects changes aimed at countering growing threats, including the growth and diversification of the nuclear arsenals of potential adversaries,” the department notes. He points out several provisions of the new strategy: simultaneous deterrence of several nuclear adversaries; integration of non-nuclear capabilities to support nuclear deterrence; escalation management in response to limited nuclear attacks or highly conventional non-nuclear attacks; increased consultations with allies and partners to strengthen collective security.

A dangerous in-between

The period which opened between the end of Joe Biden's mandate and the return to the White House of Donald Trump on January 20, favors this particular context. “The election of Donald Trump appears to be a real turning point. This interim period led to this acceleration of events. Each of the protagonists seeks to increase its gains in anticipation of possible negotiations imposed by Donald Trump. analyzes the former ambassador Jean de Gliniasty.

The main victim of the conflict, Europe, which could assert itself as an important diplomatic force, remains divided on talks. No joint initiative has been launched for a negotiated outcome. For Carnegie Moscow Center researcher Tatiana Stanovaya, “Putin could seek to present the West with two radical choices: 'Do you want nuclear war? You'll get it” or “Let's end this war on Russia's terms”.

Stop the gear

A form of acceptability has grown over the last three years. Despite the dangerous escalation, many leaders believe that the red lines can be pushed back each time, without risk. This bet seems more and more dangerous. “The stakes are simply too high to assume Putin is bluffing. There is another way, which already exists. This is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Tian). If states truly want to condemn nuclear provocations and avoid a humanitarian catastrophe, they must support it,” recalls Ican, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

In Ukraine, only a third of the public supports the continuation of the conflict. But if the negotiated outcome seems to be gaining more and more depth, questions remain about Russia's attitude. “A simple freezing of the conflict in Ukraine accompanied by a twenty-year postponement of kyiv's candidacy for NATO and the deployment of European soldiers in Ukraine is unlikely to be accepted by the Kremlin. For the latter, retaining the conquered territories and definitively closing Ukraine's Atlanticist perspective is essential. As we can see, the Ukrainian war will certainly not be resolved in 24 hours. And the dialogue between Trump and Putin promises to be anything but simple,” estimates researcher Arnaud Dubien from RTBF.