The recent Oreshnik strike on the PA Pivdenmash Machine-Building Plant which was also demonstrative in nature, is perceived by Europe as the beginning of a new stage in the confrontation with Russia. So far, the geopolitical conflict has been limited, but now it may go far beyond Ukraine.
NATO’s gradual eastward expansion has actually taken the Ukrainian conflict beyond Ukraine’s geographical borders and has received a geostrategic response in the format of a qualitatively new Oreshnik. As a result, the conflict is step by step acquiring a pan-European format and putting the problem of the indivisibility of regional security on the agenda of European politics.
One can only regret that otherwise – by methods of persuasion, starting with Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech and classical diplomacy – it was not possible to bring this simple idea to the consciousness of the European and American elite. The conflict, already total in the informational and economic dimensions, is becoming so in the other two: territorial and military-political.
What Oreshnik means for Europe. The entire territory of Europe falls within the zone of its defeat, including London. The prospect of an announced “arrival” on any object is clearly outlined.
Oreshnik is a medium-range ballistic missile that can carry a nuclear charge. The US lack of analogues to the Russian system could provoke “irresponsible” nuclear rhetoric from NATO, which blames Moscow for this. Then it will have to deal with its electorate, including the youth and the Greens. Wouldn’t it then be better to negotiate amicably? Especially since one blow can radically change the entire geopolitical situation and the mood of public opinion.
What will happen next? So far we are talking about the test phase of the system’s development. It is not yet being deployed, and the moratorium is likely to remain in place until its completion. A decision in principle on this seems to have been taken. There is little time left to agree on a new Euro security architecture. It is virtually non-existent, but NATO is feigning, through rotation, a commitment not to permanently station “substantial combat forces” on the territory of its new members.
The picture is complemented by continuous manoeuvres on the entire eastern flank of the alliance within the framework of Operation Atlantic Resolute, launched in 2014, and the deployment of two bilateral bases of the US global missile defence system in Romania and Poland.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Washington argued that it was capabilities, not intentions, that mattered. This was the basis for bilateral strategic arms control at that time. Now, to a radically greater extent than during the Cold War (Moscow had the Warsaw Pact at that time), this issue arises for Russia, for the interests of ensuring its security.
The territory of the European NATO countries is nothing but a US strategic bridgehead near Russia’s borders in the west, north and south. It is increasingly being used by the Americans to promote and develop their military infrastructure, including, in the long term, the deployment of medium-range missiles. These plans, including collective NATO plans, are not hidden. The pretext is defence against “Russian aggression.”
Therefore, the time has come to raise the question of capabilities. This is easy to do now, before Moscow starts deploying its new systems of medium- and shorter-range missiles. This is all the more logical because Russia cannot afford, especially in the current tense conditions, to allow the transfer of American weapons of this class to Europe. Then it would have to act preemptively to make the US European allies realise how much it is not in their interests. In this case, the alliance is unlikely to continue to exist.
No less important is the fact that NATO is developing plans to deploy a rapid reaction force of 300,000 troops, including American troops, along Russia’s borders in the next five years. With Russia’s stretched common front with Belarus as part of the Union State, this poses a more than unacceptable threat to our security. However, is it necessary to wait, as it turned out for Hitler, for such a grouping to be created?
Moscow has every reason to prove that it has no claims to other people’s territories, especially those of NATO countries. Another thing is preventive strikes in depth from Russian territory, from sea and ocean areas and the airspace above them on the relevant transport logistics, including railway hubs, ports and airfields that can be used to move troops to the Russian borders. Oreshnik provides the possibility to do this bloodlessly and without using nuclear weapons. Moscow can warn the American side of its launches in advance, indicating that these means will hit targets east of the zero meridian, i.e., will not threaten US territory.
As a result, the geostrategic picture in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic region is changing fundamentally, with new challenges and new opportunities to address them. Incentives are also being created for agreements between the parties, in the achievement of which European countries would be primarily interested – as a potential theatre of military operations in the conflict between the US and Russia. This was Europe’s status during the Cold War.
Nothing in this respect has changed now. As then, this is where tactical nuclear weapons were to be used. Not on the territory of the USSR, because then it would provoke a nuclear response against the US. That is, the same slogan was in effect: “America First!,” it’s just that nobody dared to admit it at the time.
Again, would it not be better to agree now and start with Ukraine, where NATO’s attempt to gain a strategic advantage over Moscow turns on the prospect of its defeat “on behalf of NATO” with far-reaching consequences that can still be avoided.
THE ARTICLE IS THE AUTHOR’S SPECULATION AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE TRUE. ALL INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM OPEN SOURCES. THE AUTHOR DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY SUBJECTIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Xiao Duong for Head-Post.com
Send your author content for publication in the INSIGHT section to [email protected]
