This Is A Cuban Missile Level Type Of Crisis
So, there’s this whole conversation of too little too late. Now the Biden administration is taking a look at Ukraine being able to utilize long range missiles. This is something Ukraine has wanted to do for a while. The Biden administration has repeatedly said no for fear of escalation, but now they’re OK with escalation when indeed, at this stage of the war, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it might be too late for Ukraine to actually be effective, even though they’re clear taking of the Kursk area has been effective. Good to be with you, Major Mike Lyons joins us retired United States Army West Point graduate. There’s a tremendous amount of finger pointing going on at Joe Biden, at Anthony Blinken, at this administration where Anthony Blinken has said that there that there is an irreversible course for Ukraine into NATO, only further exacerbating the problem. Regarding Vladimir Putin, Putin is drawing a red line on the missiles, accusing the UK of spying. Let’s start with the basics. Why the long-range missiles now?
Tony, I don’t know. And I think that in some ways this is if you look at analogies, this is a Cuban Missile Crisis level of type of disruption to the nuclear imbalance that exists between US and Russia. And what I mean by that is any missile is fired long range from Ukraine into Russia means it gets fired without any really eyes on that target. And so, um, the United States would have to be actively involved with any kind of battle damage assessment. So, what’s called ISR, Intelligence, Surveillance and Recon with what’s going on there likely going after civilian targets as well. So, this is a significant escalation that if we decided not to do two or three years ago. Why are we doing it now? Well, I hate to say it, it’s because it’s political. It’s because of the elections coming up and this, this Democratic administration is looking for some kind of win that that would be tied to both Biden and Kamala Harris. So, they believe that this is the way that that’s going to allow this to happen. That will force us to the table. I think it’s a very big calculation right now we see, you know, the Vladimir Putin Saber rattling as we’ve talked about. But in this case this is different. This is a strategic difference with that clearly will put the United States at odds against Russia and we’ve got to prepare for those consequences.
Vladimir Putin has stated that if there are long range missiles. He will see this, that Russia will see this as provocation, not just from Ukraine, but from NATO, from the United States and from the UK, and they will see this as a war stance that changes how Russia responds.
I think it could, it could force them to dig in it. It just forces them to expand the conflict. Um, if Russia decides to use tactical nuclear weapons that they have. Prepositioned in Belarus and some other places across the border, they could go to this scorched earth kind of mentality now if they think they’re not going to be able to accomplish their strategic objectives. You’re talking about 10s of thousands of Russians now will be killed civilians because they won’t be hitting just military targets. You don’t do out their infrastructure, they’re going to go after places where they’re civilians are going to be likely threaten Moscow. Um, that’s what if Ukraine is trying to win, this will do. And the talk about them joining NATO is, is, is even more of an irritant to Vladimir Putin. So he seems to me to negotiating this thing out, you know, outside and out, you know, live. You know, outside the boundaries of what normal negotiations between countries of this level should do. And frankly, I think it’s all political. It’s because we’re trying to get something done before our Election Day.
Talking to Major Mike Lyons, retired, United States Army. This is coming after the invasion of Ukraine, responding to the invasion. And now after a couple of years, they’ve now taken this area of Kursk well in to Russia. They’ve taken a thousands of kilometers, square kilometers of land. It’s it seems to be. And now we’re talking about the long-range missiles. Is that even necessary? Look, I’m in favor of Ukraine defending itself. I’m in favor of supporting Ukraine in a fight against Russia. You’re seeming to argue that what the Biden administration is trying to do here are allowing here. Goes well beyond basic defense. I don’t see how the long-range missiles the case when the taking of the Kursk region isn’t.
So, I think tactical versus strategic long range missile attacks are strategic in in that regard. The tactical intermission and the operation into Kursk were a surprise and it was a high success. And it looks like Russia is now trying to figure out some kind of counter offensive, but you know things on the. Around thinking land and the way they did that is much different than attacking in inside another country infrastructure and the like and civilian casualties without again battle damage assessment. We’ll they’ll just be literally launching missiles into Russia not knowing what was going to happen where they hit. So, I think that that’s the difference I don’t think that. I think going into Kursk is given Zelinsky and given Ukraine more negotiation power at some point. But we all know where this is going to go. It’s going to happen where there will be some kind of negotiation where unfortunately Ukraine likely cedes some pieces of land in that Donbass region, the place they’ve been there for 678. Now, uh, we, the question if I’m Ukraine, I’m trying to get as much coastal space, coastal line across the Black Sea as I can. And they’re going to, and, and likely the sticking point will be membership to NATO, which again, another thing seems to be a real problem with Vladimir Putin. So, I believe that you’re the strategic versus the tactical. The difference here and in this case, when you introduce strategic weapons, it it then it then introduces the ultimate strategic weapon and that’s long-range nuclear weapons.
But that’s now the question is Vladimir Putin in a place where this is his level of response if he sees long range weapons as an attack from the United States and NATO nations? Uh, writ large, does he decide that there’s an opportunity to engage in larger scale responses and then the follow up to that is, does he have the technology and the manpower to do it?
That’s only, I think that if all of a sudden, uh, long range missiles start falling inside of Moscow and Russians were killed there and it’s much closer to his, you know, his neighborhood, I think he has no choice but to escalate. He does have the manpower he does have. He has, Russia has more capabilities than Ukraine does. I mean, there’s no issue about that though. What, 40 million people in Ukraine versus 160 million in Russia? There’s no, there’s no comparison in in history shows in these kinds of wars of attrition that go this way as they go to the country that has the greatest industrial strength. We appreciate what Ukraine is doing. We recognize the fight that they’re putting up. But if they had to do this alone, it would not. It would not end well, and the fact that the United States and, and the Europe, some European nations have helped out have, have at least put some, some kind of process in place to make sure it doesn’t happen. Which is why from Ukraine’s perspective, it would be smart for them to get some negotiation table as soon as they can and recognize that in the long run, Russia does have more capability. Which we all know,
But this, this now leads us to where we could have been a year or two ago. The recognition that the the that Ukraine is going to have to give up the Donetsk, Luhansk, one of those areas clearly it seems Vladimir Zelensky is saying no to that is the is the long range. Also conversation, one that is factual, or let’s go back to this idea of a strategy. Is this a strategy to bring Putin to the table, to end this thing with some kind of give up Zelensky knowing he’s going to have to give up something?
Yeah, that’s a great point, right? Just because the United States lets Ukraine. Do this doesn’t mean that Ukraine doesn’t right it doesn’t necessarily think that they’re not going to style launch these missiles long range. They have the capability so but we’re not playing poker. We’re playing you know a game of chicken now with him to try to get him to the negotiation table. I don’t I do believe there’s that the Ukrainians have proposed. Some kind of peace negotiation that’s coming like November is what uh, the latest was out there. And so they’re, they’re trying to do what they can to get Russia to the table and Vladimir Putin and maybe this is that the card they’re trying to play to do that. So, but again, you don’t have to then use it. They’d have to if the United States gives them that, that capability then. The question is, I believe they would use it. They would go after infrastructure targets. They would not sit back on their heels and do it. And that’s why from my perspective, it’s all political that this administration is trying to get something done before Election Day so they could show the world that that they were able to get some kind of peace negotiated. But I just don’t think that this is the way to do it. It’s. Lighting a fuse that could blow up very much in our face.
Talking to Major Mike Lyons, retired United States Army West Point graduate, talked to me about how European nations are seeing this these NATO allies when you hear Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, discuss that there is an irreversible path. For Ukraine into NATO, when they see this this movement and conversation from Vladimir Putin and going through some of the standard exercises of accusing the UK of spying and all sorts of things, where is their posture right now? Yeah.
So, I think the Germans and the French and the the major European nations there that talked to some folks actually just got back from a conference there. They’ve now they’ve gotten, they’ve gone back to the mean knowing that Russia has been degraded. They don’t feel Russia is this ground threat anymore and the fact that the United States is this nuclear umbrella. That protects them. And then at the same token, it’s the United States that’s leading this charge for them to be, for Ukraine to be inside of, of NATO. And so every, there’s other NATO, there’s other European countries are frankly somewhat silent on it. The concern that the European countries have right now, frankly, is still they, they, they’re not, they’re not convinced there’s going to be this ground. In Europe, they’re actually folks I’ve talked to think there’s concern about China and they think the Pacific will explode necessarily quickly before anything in future happens in Europe. So that so European countries have gotten back to the mean as the United States continues to throw all the support to Ukraine, they they’re providing, you know. Material support in some ways, but I think deep down they recognize that that that Russia has been signed seriously degraded and they don’t have to necessarily worry about a ground war in Europe anytime soon.
I don’t normally take get your take on the political scene. We focus on the military. Things as it your, your, your expertise. But to the extent that you believe some of these things are happening in the wake of a presidential election, are any of these things maneuvers to try and get it as you see it, preferred candidates elected or supported? You know, they talk about election interference that way. Or yeah, it may be differently to the idea that they think America is in a weak moment because of the election and specifically the situation with Joe Biden, and opportunities therefore abound.
Yeah, unfortunately, I do think that we’ve allowed our politics to cloud our view of American foreign policy, which is what’s in the best interest of the United States. It’s in the best interest of the United States to try to figure out a way to end this conflict as soon as possible. Uh, not, not based on the timeline, for whatever reason, the last 10 or 15 years. Both sides of the aisle have been focused on timelines to get out of Afghanistan to to end wars and do things. But they don’t always work that way. They’re not always clean like that. In this particular situation, though, right now we see in our in our politics, you know, virtually in a very inexperienced foreign policy vice president with Joe, you know, attached to Joe Biden. Uh, with, uh, with these proposals by Anthony Blinken as Secretary of State, but on the job for years that came out of nowhere. Why all of a sudden is now good idea to let the let the Ukraine government do this, let them all of a sudden attack deep inside of Russia. They could have done this two years ago. They could have done this from the very start and, and that would have. You know, made the situation different, but for, for whatever reason, we’ve attached it to the timeline and the timeline is coincidentally attached to our election cycle. And that’s what just has me a little bit cynical about why the why it’s moving in this direction.
Listen to the discussion in full here:
Don’t miss an episode of Tony Katz Today.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST
Tony Katz + The Morning News on Apple Podcasts
Tony Katz + The Morning News | Podcast on Spotify
Tony Katz and the Morning News on IHeartRadio
