To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
The "window to avert catastrophic miscalculation is now that much narrower," warned one expert after Biden lifted restrictions on U.S.-supplied weapons.
Fresh fears of escalation were expressed Tuesday after Ukraine struck territory deep inside of Russia using long-range missiles for the first time within hours of the Kremlin announcing changes to its nuclear weapons posture.
In the pre-dawn hours, Ukraine reportedlyused U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles to attack an ammunition depot in the Bryansk region of Russia, located less than 200 miles north of a small strip of Russian territory currently held by Ukraine thanks to an incursion mounted in summer 2024. Russian forces are working to push back Ukrainian forces in the area.
The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that there was an attack. "At 3:25 a.m. this morning the enemy struck a site on the territory of the Bryansk Region with six ballistic missiles. According to confirmed data, US-made ATACMS tactical missiles were used. As a result of an anti-missile battle, five missiles were shot down and one was damaged by crews of S-400 and Pantsir missile defense systems," the ministry said in statement, according to the Russian government-run news agency TASS.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia would respond "accordingly."
The attack comes on the 1,000th day of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine that began in 2022, and mere days after President Joe Biden green lit Ukraine's use of these specific weapons – in what The New York Times characterized as a "major shift of American foreign policy" and one foreign policy expert called a "needlessly escalatory step."
Ukraine President Vlodomyr Zelenskyy has long sought permission from the U.S. government to use Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, according to the Financial Times. Zelenskyy has also asked for the lifting of restrictions on other long-range weapons provided by NATO countries – including Storm Shadow missiles from the United Kingdom. The U.S. began supplying the Lockheed Martin-produced ATACMS earlier this year, according to Defense One, but imposed restrictions on their use due to the escalatory implications of Ukraine using them to strike targets far inside Russian territory.
Also on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree implementing changes to the country's nuclear doctrine that lower the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use.
Under the updated doctrine, "aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies by any nonnuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack," according to the The New York Times.
"The big picture is that Russia is lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a possible conventional attack," Alexander Graef, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, toldReuters.
"Russia's new nuclear doctrine means NATO missiles fired against our country could be deemed an attack by the bloc on Russia. Russia could retaliate with WMD against Kiev and key NATO facilities, wherever they're located. That means World War III," wrote former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on X early Tuesday.
U.S. intelligence analysts have also concluded that granting Ukraine the ability to use U.S., French and U.K.-supplied long-range missiles could prompt forceful retaliation by Russia, but that the move would likely not fundamentally alter the course of the war.
Mark Episkopos, a Eurasia research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned Monday that use of such weapons by the Ukraine military would likely not impact the battlefield advantages of either side in the immediate term but puts "Russia and NATO one step closer to a direct confrontation."
"With such weapons now in play," added Episkopos, "the window to avert catastrophic miscalculation is now that much narrower."
Meanwhile, in a Tuesday statement on X, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said it was "dangerously complacent" for Western politicians and pundits to dismiss Putin's shift as some kind of bluff.
"We can’t know if Putin—or any leader of a nuclear-armed country—will use nuclear weapons at any time," argued ICAN. "No matter the size of a nuclear weapon any use would escalate rapidly into a nuclear war devastating the world. The stakes are simply too high to assume Putin is bluffing."
ICAN, the 2017 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the "way to prevent nuclear weapons from ever being used again is to eliminate them, and treaties like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons are here for that."
The Biden administration's rollback of restrictions comes after thousands of North Korean troops have joined the Russian military effort, and as President-elect Donald Trump's January inauguration approaches. Trump has said he will seek a swift end to the war and criticized the amount of aid the United States has provided Ukraine.
"Without explicit legal rules, the world faces a grim future of automated killing that will place civilians everywhere in grave danger," one human rights expert said.
As drone warfare continues to proliferate worldwide and concerns grow over the use of artificial intelligence by militaries, Human Rights Watch on Monday backed United Nations' Secretary-General António Guterres' call for an international treaty to ban "killer robots" that select and attack targets without human oversight.
In an August 6 report, Guterres urged the international community to negotiate a treaty prohibiting lethal autonomous weapons systems by 2026. This is a widely supported idea, as 47 of the 58 submissions to the report from more than 73 countries endorsed either a ban or increased regulations.
"The U.N, secretary-general emphasizes the enormous detrimental effects removing human control over weapons systems would have on humanity," Mary Wareham, deputy crisis, conflict, and arms director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "The already broad international support for tackling this concern should spur governments to start negotiations without delay."
The momentum behind a ban is building as armies around the world are increasingly deploying and testing militarized robots and drones. The U.S. military became the first nation to widely deploy drone warfare during its War on Terror campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Iraq following the attacks of 9/11. But today, from Israel's use of drones in Gaza and the West Bank to China and Russia's growing arsenals, the use of remotely operated weapons is rapidly expanding.
HRW's call came the same day that Russia launched an attack on Ukrainian energy infrastructure using around 200 missiles and drones. The attack killed at least five people and knocked out power and water in several parts of the country, Reuters reported.
"It was one of the biggest combined strikes. More than a hundred missiles of various types and about a hundred Shahed drones. And like most previous Russian strikes, this one is just as sneaky, targeting critical civilian infrastructure," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Telegram.
Ukraine has also used long-range attack drones against Russia, targeting sites such as oil refineries and military airfields.
Also on Monday, North Korean state media reported that the country's leader Kim Jong Un had supervised a test of a North Korean attack drone.
Pictures showed a drone colliding with a target that looked like a South Korean K-2 main battle tank and obliterating it an a fiery explosion.
The North Korean test coincides with increased tensions with South Korea and the U.S. as well as a joint exercise by the two countries to prepare their militaries for a potential conflict with North Korea.
Noting their importance in modern warfare, Kim said he wanted North Korea to be equipped with drones "as soon as possible" and urged the manufacturing of several types including exploding drones, attack drones, and underwater suicide drones, according to North Korean state media.
Drones featured in another global hot spot as China sent two drones over the sea between Taiwan and Japan's westernmost island of Yonaguni on Friday, as the Joint Staff Office under Japan's Defense Ministry observed.
China's move followed two actions by the U.S. military: the first ever U.S. Marine Corps deployment of a radar capable of sensing aerial threats including drones from Yonaguni on July 29 during exercises and the sending of the destroyer USS Ralph Johnson to the Taiwan Strait on Thursday.
Israel has also used drones "systematically" in its ongoing war on Gaza.
In a February report, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said it had confirmed that dozens of civilians had been killed by "small killer drones," including the Matrice 600 and LANIUS models. The drones were equipped with explosives, machine guns, and artificial intelligence.
"Israel is intentionally using them to target Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip," Euro-Med said, adding that "the majority of Israel's targeting takes place in public spaces where it is easy to distinguish fighters from civilians."
World leaders will have a chance to curb the proliferation of drones in warfare in New York in September, when they will convene at U.N. headquarters for the Summit of the Future, an initiative of Guterres.
The summit is expected to produce a "Pact for the Future," the current draft of which recommends acting "with urgency" toward international control of killer robots.
"The Summit of the Future provides an important opportunity for states to express high-level support for opening negotiations to ban and restrict autonomous weapons systems," Wareham said. "Without explicit legal rules, the world faces a grim future of automated killing that will place civilians everywhere in grave danger."
"Hundreds of millions of civilians around the world suffer—and hundreds of thousands have died—even in times of ostensible peace under the broad economic sanctions imposed unilaterally and illegally by the United States."
As human rights defenders marked the 75th anniversary of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its prohibition on collective punishment, hundreds of legal experts and groups on Monday urged the global community—and the United States government in particular—"to comply with international law by ending the use of broad, unilateral coercive measures that extensively harm civilian populations."
In a letter to U.S. President Joe Biden, the jurists and legal groups wrote that "75 years ago, in the aftermath of one of the most destructive conflicts in human history, nations of the world came together in Geneva, Switzerland to establish clear legal limits on the treatment of noncombatants in times of war."
"The legal community needs to push back against the narrative that sanctions are nonviolent alternatives to warfare."
"One key provision... is the prohibition of collective punishment, which is considered a war crime," the letter continues. "We consider the unilateral application of certain economic sanctions to constitute collective punishment."
Suzanne Adely, president of the National Lawyers Guild—one of the letter's signatories—said in a statement that "economic sanctions cause direct material harm not only to the people living on the receiving end of these policies, but to those who rely on trade and economic relations with sanctioned countries."
"The legal community needs to push back against the narrative that sanctions are nonviolent alternatives to warfare and hold the U.S. Government accountable for violating international law every time it wields these coercive measures," she added.
The new letter states:
Collective punishment is a standard practice of U.S. foreign policy today in the form of broad, unilateral economic and financial sanctions. While other countries apply sanctions in some form, the United States imposes more unilateral economic sanctions than any other country in the world, by far. Though this method of collective punishment may differ from that of conventional warfare, and is often applied outside of declared military conflict, its collective impact on civilians can be just as indiscriminate, punitive, and deadly.
"Hundreds of millions of people currently live under such broad U.S. economic sanctions in some form, including in notable cases such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela," the letter notes. "The evidence that these measures can cause severe, widespread civilian harm, including death, is overwhelming. Broad economic sanctions can spark and prolong economic crises, hinder access to essential goods like food, fuel, and medicine, and increase poverty, hunger, disease, and even death rates, especially among children. Such conditions in turn often drive mass migration, as in the recent cases of Cuba and Venezuela."
For more than 64 years, the U.S. has imposed a crippling economic embargo on Cuba that had adversely affected all sectors of the socialist island's economy and severely limited Cubans' access to basic necessities including food, fuel, and medicines. The Cuban government
claims the blockade cost the country's economy nearly $5 billion in just one 11-month period in 2022-23 alone. For the past 32 years, United Nations member states have voted overwhelmingly against the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Last year's vote was 187-2, with the U.S. and Israel as the only dissenters.
According to a 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C., as many as 40,000 Venezuelans died from 2017-18 to U.S. sanctions, which have made it much more difficult for millions of people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities.
"Civilian suffering is not merely an incidental cost of these policies, but often their very intent," the new letter asserts. "A 1960 State Department memo on the embargo of Cuba suggested 'denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government.'"
"Civilian suffering is not merely an incidental cost of these policies, but often their very intent."
"Asked whether the Trump administration's sanctions on Iran were working as intended, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded that 'things are much worse for the Iranian people, and we're convinced that will lead the Iranian people to rise up and change the behavior of the regime,'" the signers added.
Experts have repeatedly noted that while sanctions harm everyday people in targeted countries, leaders of those nations use their positions as dictators to enrich themselves and members of their inner circles. Sanctions also fail to work as intended to topple targeted regimes. Cuba's revolutionary government has outlasted a dozen U.S. presidents. Iran has been under U.S. sanctions since the late 1970s, yet its Islamic regime remains entrenched and has forged closer relations with Russia and China. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is still in power despite two decades of U.S. sanctions. North Korea's dynastic dictatorship shows no signs of cracking after seven decades of sanctions.
Others have highlighted the hypocrisy of the United States sanctioning nations over ideological differences while supporting brutal dictatorships including Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and Equatorial Guinea, and other gross human rights violators like apartheid Israel, which is on trial for genocide at the World Court. Instead of punishing Israel, the U.S. House of Representatives—with the assent of dozens of Democratic lawmakers—passed legislation to sanction officials of the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor is seeking to arrest Israeli and Hamas leaders.
"The Geneva Conventions, for all of their limitations and subsequent violations, were a triumph of international law in the protection of civilians during times of war," the new letter asserts. "Yet today, hundreds of millions of civilians around the world suffer—and hundreds of thousands have died—even in times of ostensible peace under the broad economic sanctions imposed unilaterally and illegally by the United States."
"As members of the legal community, we call on the United States to comply with existing international law by ending the use of broad unilateral coercive measures," the signers added. "Seventy-five years after the Geneva Conventions, collective punishment must end."