OCTOBER SURPRISE?

An October surprise is often an unplanned event the month before the general election (though, it could conceivably be a staged event as well.) An example of what many see as a staged event is when, in 1968 with the unpopular bombing of North Vietnam in full swing, President Johnson (D) announced the weekend before the election, that there would be a halt to the bombing and he held out the suggestion of peace talks. This was an initiative that was seen to boost the election prospects of his Vice-President Hubert Humphrey who was running for president against Richard Nixon.  Nixon ultimately won anyway.

An unplanned surprise of sorts took place on October 28, 2016 after e-mail from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was discovered on a private laptop of a former Congressman and husband of a Clinton staff member.  FBI Director James Comey announced that he would reopen an investigation into the e-mail and how they wound up on a private citizen’s laptop.  Clinton had been investigated earlier about a similar issue (using a private server for government business), but as time went by and no sanctions were taken, the public put it behind them.  Now, a week before an election, the headline returned, the voters soured on Clinton at the last moment. Donald Trump owed Comey a debt of thanks for Comey’s diligence (or lack of discretion.)  The question is, will there be a surprise next month to commandeer the election?

STORM SHADOW/SCALP-EG MISSILES

At the moment, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is in Washington, DC in an attempt to get President Joe Biden to agree to let Ukraine employ a weapons system against Russia, made by Britain and France.  This armament is an air launched cruise missile which Britain calls “Storm Shadow” and France designates as “Scalp.”  Ukraine already has these missiles, but they are cleared only for use on on Russian forces on Ukraine territory.  Ukraine has complained that Russia assembles both men and material on Russian soil as another Russian attack against Ukraine territory is planned.  Allowing Ukraine to offensively attack these positions inside Russia will in some sense be seen as a defensive action taken by that brave country. Storm Shadow has a 155 mile range, which, depending on where it is launched, could hit more than an hundred targets on the Ukrainian “wish lists,” including Russian President Vladimir Putin’s prized Kerch Bridge.

While this weapons system is not manufactured by the U.S., it may have some U.S. components in it, and will likely depend on U.S. satellites to hone in on the targets that Ukraine aims for.  And, it could provoke a wider war that would draw the U.S. in as a participant.  Putin has recently said that this could be a game changer as far as Moscow is concerned, and it would require that Russia consider NATO as a belligerent in the conflict. I’ve included Putin’s remarks at length and in full below.

WHAT RUSSIA SAYS

Essentially President Putin says that Western weapons of war would be used on his country, perhaps even launched from his country, and likely would kill Russian civilians in the process, with the assistance of Western military forces that would provide intelligence and logistical support to Ukraine to operate this missile.  Also (but unsaid by Putin) would be the potential use of more powerful and further reaching weapons such as the ATACM which is made by America and can penetrate even further into Russian territory once this threshold is crossed.

While I personally don’t feel one bit sorry for the situation Russia finds itself in, I do find Mr. Putin’s argument persuasive in some sense.  The U.S., Britain and France (indeed, all of NATO) are playing a political game known among academics as “Chicken.”  The game visualizes two cars on an asphalt road driving towards each other at high speed to see which driver will serve at the last minute.  But what if neither driver swerves? Or what if they both turn to the same direction?  There is one chance to emerge unscathed and two chances to wreck.  As the BBC notes:

Washington worries that although so far all of President Vladimir Putin’s threatened red lines have turned out to be empty bluffs, allowing Ukraine to hit targets deep inside Russia with Western-supplied missiles could just push him over the edge into retaliating. 

The fear in the White House is that hardliners in the Kremlin could insist this retaliation takes the form of attacking transit points for missiles on their way to Ukraine, such as an airbase in Poland.”

Continuing this hypothetical, if Poland is attacked by Russian missiles, it will demand that NATO invoke Article 5 which would put the alliance at war with Russia, and how might that end? Ukraine would undoubtedly be pleased. If President Biden agrees to allow Ukraine to “have its way” with these missiles, it may be because Russia has recently received short-range Fath 360 missiles from Iran, either for use in Ukraine or to replenish their own stock.  These missiles will likely be used to target the Ukrainian energy system once again as winter sets in.

COMBAT FATIGUE

The war is not going well at the moment for Ukraine, given their inability to recover lost ground this past spring and a “fatigue” among NATO allies to give even more (as evidenced by the funding debate in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year.)  Certainly, this was part of Russia’s calculus starting the war, which they initially thought would only last a week or so.  Ukraine, however, once again defied Russian expectations by launching an incursion into Russia, itself.  This is what the military calls a salient, or a situation where friendly military forces are surrounded by hostile forces on three sides. In some romantic sense (if war can ever be called that), this is something like Confederate States of America General Robert E. Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania during the Civil War.  It is a bold, certainly demoralizing development to the opponent, but doomed to be short-lived because Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, like Lee, does not have the resources to either enlarge the salient, or remain there very long.

I don’t know if Putin plays poker, but Putin cannot bluff indefinitely.  He has been hurt politically by the way to war has dragged out, by what may have been an attempted coup launched by the Wagner Group in 2023 and now for Russians to understand that their country has been invaded even as armed drones threaten Moscow.  So, if President Putin is what is called in political theory a “rational actor,” he may very well blink as Nikita Khrushchev in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis (which saved the world from war but forced him from power.)

But then again, he may not.

With the U.S. faced with the prospect of war in the weeks immediately before an election (any election), there would be a usual “rally ’round the flag” effect which would benefit the incumbent administration. But this is not a usual election. Donald J. Trump would likely remind voters that he is the candidate for peace and only he could get the country out of “this mess.” Only he could save America, the world even.

That seems ludicrous, but half of the country might actually belive it!

POSTSCRIPT (SEPTEMBER 13, 2024)

It seems as if there was a “September surprise” as well. British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer left Washington empty-handed. While he was conferring with U.S. President Joe Biden, Russia was warning the U.N. Security Council that NATO was on the brink of widening the war in Ukraine (the one started by Russia’s invasion of that country.) While this warning was being communicated, the U.S. said that ATACM use against Russian territory was off the table. But before PM Starmer left for London, the U.S. announced that no decision had been made as far as the Storm Shadows/Scalp missiles as well. Most likely, the U.S. election had something to do with this. But likely the Tories in England, possibly the French and certainly the Ukranians are shaking their heads at the lack of U.S. resolve. World War III has been postponed for another day.

---

Vladimir Putin answered a question from a media representative.

Following his address to the plenary session of the United Cultures Forum, Vladimir Putin answered a question from a media representative.

18:55, September 12, 2024 (St Petersburg)

Question: “Over the past few days, we have been hearing statements at a very high level in the UK and the United States that the Kiev regime will be allowed to strike targets deep inside Russia using Western long-range weapons. Apparently, this decision is either about to be made, or has already been made, as far as we can see. This is actually quite extraordinary. Could you comment on what is going on?”

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: What we are seeing is an attempt to substitute notions. Because this is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes using unmanned aerial vehicles and other means. But using Western-made long-range precision weapons is a completely different story.

The fact is that – I have mentioned this, and any expert, both in our country and in the West, will confirm this – the Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.

The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.

Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.

If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.

This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”