Nuclear attack unlikely, but Russian sabotage campaign looms: US intelligence

Officials initially resisted such a move, citing escalation concerns and uncertainty over how Putin would respond. Some of those officials, including in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, feared lethal retaliation against US military and diplomatic personnel and attacks on NATO allies. Others were specifically worried about nuclear escalation. Biden changed his mind because of North Korea’s entry into the war before the US presidential election, US officials have said.

Hybrid warfare

Some officials now believe the escalation concerns, including the nuclear fears, were overblown but stress that the overall situation in Ukraine remains dangerous and that nuclear escalation is not out of the question. Russia’s ability to find other covert ways of retaliating against the West remains a worry.

NATO and Western intelligence services have warned that Russia is behind a growing number of hostile activities across the Euro-Atlantic area, ranging from repeated cyberattacks to Moscow-linked arson – all of which Russia denies.

Russia’s acts of sabotage against Western targets may eventually prompt NATO to consider invoking the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defence clause, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service said on Wednesday.

Loading

In Berlin on Wednesday, Federal Intelligence Service chief Bruno Kahl said he expected Moscow to further step up its hybrid warfare – and that the Kremlin sees Germany as an enemy.

“At the same time, the increasing ramp-up of the Russian military potential means a direct military confrontation with NATO becomes one possible option for the Kremlin.”

Under Article 5, if a NATO member comes under attack, the other members of the alliance are obliged to help it respond.

Should Russia attack one or several NATO allies, it would not do so to grab massive swathes of land, Kahl said, but rather to test red lines set by the West with the aim of defeating Western unity and NATO as a defensive alliance.

“In Russia’s view, this goal would be reached if Article 5 were to remain without effect in case of a Russian attack,” he said.

Loading

“To meet this target, you don’t need to send tank armies westwards, it is enough to dispatch ‘little green men’ to the Baltics to protect allegedly threatened Russian minorities or adjust borders on Svalbard”.

“Russia’s hybrid response is a concern,” said Angela Stent, director of Eurasian, Russian and East European studies at Georgetown University, referring to Russia’s sabotage in Europe.

“The chance of escalation was never not there. The concern now is greater.”

The White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the intelligence assessments.

Reaction and counter-reaction

Since August, when Ukraine launched a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, Moscow and Kyiv have been locked in a cycle of escalating moves and counter-moves.

Russia has enlisted help from North Korea, which sent between 11,000 and 12,000 soldiers to help its war effort, according to the United States. The same day as Ukraine’s first strike under the relaxed US policy, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike.

Loading

Fear of nuclear escalation has been a factor in US officials’ thinking since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. CIA director William Burns has said there was a real risk in late 2022 that Russia could use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

Even so, the White House moved forward with Ukraine aid, sending billions of dollars worth of military assistance.

Some officials’ concerns faded as Putin did not act on his threats, but they remained central to how many in the administration weighed decisions on how the US should support Kyiv.

In May, the White House allowed Ukraine to use American missiles in limited circumstances to strike across the border but not deep inside Russia, citing the risk of escalation by Moscow, marginal tactical benefit and a limited supply of ATACMS.

One of the intelligence assessments from early summer, drawn up at the White House’s request, explained that strikes across the border from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv would have limited impact because 90 per cent of Russian aircraft had been moved back from the border – out of reach of the short-range missiles.

But the assessments also noted while Putin often threatens to use nuclear weapons, Moscow is unlikely to take such a step in part because they do not provide a clear military benefit. Intelligence officials described the nuclear option as a last resort for Russia and that Putin would resort to other means of reprisal first, noting Russia was already engaged in sabotage and cyberattacks.

Still, some officials inside the White House and Pentagon argued that allowing Kyiv to use the missiles to strike inside Russia would put Kyiv, the US and American allies in unprecedented danger, provoking Putin to retaliate either through nuclear force or other deadly tactics outside the war zone.

Pentagon officials worried about attacks on US military bases.

The North Korea factor

The introduction of North Korean troops convinced the administration, particularly a group of officials at the White House and the Pentagon concerned about escalation, to allow the long-range strikes, a senior US official said.

Russia was making battlefield gains, and the North Korean troops were viewed internally as an escalation by Moscow, necessitating a response from Washington, the official said.

Loading

Given the early intelligence assessments downplaying the risk of nuclear escalation, the nuclear fears were overstated, and the decision to allow wider use of ATACMS came too late, said a senior US official and a lawmaker, citing Russia’s recent advances.

Intelligence sources say Moscow’s most robust and successful reprisal operations are likely to come through sabotage. Russian intelligence services have launched a massive international effort in Europe to intimidate countries who support Ukraine, one European diplomat said.

A US official added Moscow was actively looking to advance its “grey-zone” warfare against the West and that Russia has an extensive network of agents and was exploring options for using them.