Russia Issues Nuclear Threats if NATO-Backed F-16s Strike Within Its Borders

 

As NATO's support for Ukraine grows, Russia has issued a stark warning to "small countries with dense populations" about the potential for nuclear retaliation if F-16 jets hit targets inside Russia. This follows comments from the Dutch Foreign Minister suggesting that F-16 fighters from the Netherlands could be used for such strikes.

On May 31, Dutch Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot stated that the Netherlands would not object if Ukraine used the supplied F-16 fighter jets to strike Russian targets in self-defense. "If you have the right to self-defense, there are no borders for the use of weapons. This is a general principle," Bruins Slot said during an informal NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Prague.

Denmark has taken a similar stance, with Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen noting that it is fair for Ukraine to use Danish-supplied F-16s to target military objectives within Russia. Rasmussen emphasized that Ukraine was not given carte blanche to invade Russia but to target military installations strategically.

Ukraine is set to receive F-16s from Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium, with the United States approving the transfer. However, Washington's approval may be needed for combat operations targeting Russian territory, as these fighters were originally sold by the US.

Social media is abuzz with speculation that F-16s will soon strike Russia, despite no official acknowledgment from the Pentagon. Pro-Ukraine bloggers and analysts express widespread jubilation over this possibility. The statements from Dutch and Danish officials reflect a growing consensus within NATO to allow Ukraine to target Russian territory with Western-supplied weapons.

Recent indications suggest that the US may have permitted Ukraine to use American munitions to strike Russia, with President Joe Biden authorizing such strikes near Kharkiv. Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed this on May 31, noting that the US would "adapt and adjust" to future Ukrainian requests for strikes within Russia.

Blinken did not specify if F-16s could be used for these strikes. The Biden Administration has so far refrained from allowing Ukraine to use long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to hit Russian targets. Other NATO allies, including France and Germany, have also authorized strikes within Russian territory, led by French President Emmanuel Macron's support for Kyiv's right to neutralize Russian military bases launching attacks into Ukraine.

These decisions come amid Ukrainian leaders' claims that restrictions on their use of weapons have allowed Russia to attack with impunity. Russia has responded with strong warnings, emphasizing its nuclear capabilities.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned of "serious consequences" due to the escalating situation, particularly for European countries with small territories and dense populations. During a visit to Uzbekistan, Putin highlighted the risks of such nations considering strikes deep into Russian territory.

On May 31, Andrei Kartapolov, Head of the Defense Committee in the Russian lower house, stated that Moscow would respond asymmetrically to any attacks using US-supplied weaponry. Senior Russian security official Dmitry Medvedev also reiterated that Russia's threats of using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine are serious, cautioning that the conflict with the West could escalate into a full-scale war.

Western leaders have hesitated to supply certain weapon systems and authorize their use against Russia to avoid triggering a broader conflict between NATO and Russia. However, with Russia's ongoing aggressive actions and advances into Kharkiv, NATO states are increasingly supporting the use of long-range Western weapons to counter the Russian threat.

Pakistan Measures in U.S. Defense Bill 'Counterproductive'

ISLAMABAD - Measures to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for Pakistan in the recently passed U.S. defense authorization bill for 2012 have been labeled counterproductive by regional experts.

The measures seek to withhold $700 million for Pakistan until Congress is convinced by the defense secretary that Islamabad is moving to combat the IEDs used to attack NATO/ISAF troops in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government and military have not released a response to the measures.

However, former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, said the measures were "petty and spiteful" and "put in place by politicians who are anxious to play the patriotism card to win votes."

He said the measures were also unworkable as one of the main concerns of U.S authorities was to restrict the flow of fertilizer from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Fertilizer from Pakistan is a main ingredient in the production of homemade explosives.

Cloughley said that fertilizer was desperately needed in Afghanistan because of the generally poor soil quality and, therefore, he believes the fertilizer would be imported regardless of what the U.S. Congress wants.

"There is no possible means of detecting it other than individual search of every truck moving through official border check posts, including, of course, via northern routes," Cloughley said.

Cloughley added: "Fertilizer doesn't come only from Pakistan. It, along with much other contraband, enters through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; probably Iran, too."

He said Congress had also ignored the fact that "over 150,000 Pakistani troops have been committed to the western border, more than the U.S. and ISAF have in the whole of Afghanistan", and that "of the claimed 170,000 Afghan army troops supposed to be serving … only 3,000 to 4,000 [troops] are in the east of the country."

Even if Pakistan was able to stop the flow of fertilizer through the border crossings, Cloughley said smugglers would resort to more simple measures by loading it onto donkeys trained to make their own way across the border.

The withholding of finances is a keenly felt issue in Pakistan.

Analyst Haris Khan, of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, said "Under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) aid, no money or funds have been released since June 2011."

The Pakistani government and military have been somewhat silent on the non-payment of funds, Khan said.

Kahn described the silence in terms of the continued non-reimbursement of payments Pakistan made for 28 embargoed F-16C/Ds under the Pressler Amendment in the 1990s. Pakistan initially continued to make payments for the embargoed aircraft despite it being unlikely they would be released.

He said Pakistan should take a more forceful and "businesslike" approach to the non-payment of funds for services rendered, and be more active in demanding payments.

Just what Pakistan can do in this regard is uncertain, as all movement of NATO supplies through Pakistan has already stopped due to the NATO/ISAF attacks on two border posts on the night of Nov. 25/ 26.

Pakistan may not have much leverage, but Cloughley said he believes the U.S. is also in a similar position.

While the measures sound very severe, Cloughley said, "the freeze will not affect Pakistan gravely."

Ultimately, Cloughley said the measures are counterproductive as the "only definite outcome" will be "increased distrust and hatred of the U.S. throughout Pakistan."

U.S. Could Send More Supplies Through Uzbekistan

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - The United States is trying to increase the flow of non-lethal supplies to U.S. troops in Afghanistan via Uzbekistan as it may not always be able to count on the Pakistan route, a U.S. official said Oct. 22.
The official spoke as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, part of the U.S. military's Northern Distribution Network (NDN), following a trip to Pakistan to discuss troubled ties there.

"As a general rule, we're trying to get more [goods] through Central Asia and through Uzbekistan," the senior State Department official, who was accompanying Clinton, told reporters on condition of anonymity.
"We've always said that we prefer to use the Pakistan route because it's cheaper, it's shorter," the official said, recalling that the northern route goes via the Baltic states, Russia and Kazakhstan.
"But still, it's [the northern route] a good thing to have. And again with our [often troubled] relations with Pakistan, we always have to be prepared should they decide to either want to restrict our access or, even in the worst case, close it off.
"We would be prepared to move north through Central Asia if necessary."
The route from Uzbekistan is a rail link that distributes fuel and other non-lethal goods. He said about 50 percent of surface shipments take that route.
The Uzbeks are "sensitive" about publicizing the route to Afghanistan for fear that it will prompt "retribution" from the Taliban and other Islamist militants in the region, he added.
In February 2009, during improving relations with Washington, Uzbek President Islam Karimov said he would allow the United States to transport non-military supplies through his country.
In 2005, Tashkent closed the U.S. air base in the country that was used to support troops in Afghanistan after U.S. criticism of a bloody crackdown on unrest in Andijan in the country's east.
The U.S. official said there were no plans to hold negotiations to reopen the base. Nor were there plans, he said, to increase supplies through Tajikistan, which is a small supply route.
Clinton visited Islamabad on Oct. 20 and 21 to urge Pakistan to dismantle havens in Pakistan that militants use to launch attacks in neighboring Afghanistan, an issue that has put a heavy strain on U.S.-Pakistani ties

U.S. Shifts Supply Routes to Central Asia: Report

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is expanding its Central Asian supply routes to the war in Afghanistan, fearing that the routes going through Pakistan could be endangered by deteriorating U.S.-Pakistani relations, The Washington Post reported late on July 2.

Citing unnamed Pentagon officials, the newspaper said that in 2009, the United States moved 90 percent of its military surface cargo through the Pakistani port of Karachi and then through mountain passes into Afghanistan.

Now almost 40 percent of surface cargo arrives in Afghanistan from the north, along a patchwork of Central Asian rail and road routes that the Pentagon calls the Northern Distribution Network, the report said.

The military is pushing to raise the northern network's share to as much as 75 percent by the end of this year, the paper said.

In addition, the U.S. government is negotiating expanded agreements with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and other countries that would allow for delivery of additional supplies to the Afghan war zone, The Post said.

The United States also wants permission to withdraw vehicles and other equipment from Afghanistan as the U.S. military prepares to pull out one-third of its forces by September 2012, the paper noted.

U.S. President Barack Obama announced last month that 10,000 troops would leave this year and all 33,000 personnel sent as part of a surge ordered in late 2009 would be home by next summer, leaving a U.S. force of some 65,000.

There are currently up to 150,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including about 99,000 from the United States. Obama has indicated a series of drawdowns until Afghan forces assume security responsibility in 2014.

Uzbeks 'behind ethnic clashes in southern Kyrgyzstan'

Thousands of homes were destroyed in the violence in Osh in June 2010

An official investigation in Kyrgyzstan into deadly ethnic clashes last year has said local Uzbek leaders were to blame.

Commission head Abdygany Erkebayev said several local Uzbek politicians had tried to instigate violence.
He said that allies of ousted president Kurmanbek Bakiyev also played a part.
More than 400 people died in the violence that erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, three months after Mr Bakiyev was overthrown.
Mr Erkebayev said 426 deaths had been confirmed, of which 276 were Uzbeks and 105 were Kyrgyz.
Tens of thousands of people - mostly Uzbeks - were forced to flee their homes.
'Agitating' Speaking in the capital, Bishkek, Mr Erkebayev said: "The tragic events were provoked not by the Uzbek or the Kyrgyz people, but by people with extremist views."
He said the April uprising that ousted Mr Bakiyev had led to calls from the Uzbek community for more political representation, and singled out one prominent Uzbek businessman for blame.
"He travelled to areas of southern Kyrgyzstan densely populated by Uzbeks, agitating and organising rallies," he said.
But he also accused allies of the ousted president - whose support base was in the south - of orchestrating clashes.
"Bakiyev's circle bankrolled the militants and several relatives of the ex-president Bakiyev also took up arms to participate in those events," he said.
Human rights groups have, in the past, accused the authorities of singling out Uzbeks for blame.
They have also criticised them for detaining large numbers of Uzbek men in the wake of the crisis.
Erica Marat of the Caucasus-Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University in the US told the BBC that the report reflected mainstream Kyrgyz sentiment, and failed to answer key questions about what sparked the violence.
The findings showed that the government was not ready to "provide an honest investigation of what happened in June", she said.