Are the missiles launched beyond the Russian border really the red line that will trigger the Kremlin’s reaction, perhaps with tactical nuclear weapons, or will it end up like with the tanks, the Atacms, the F-16s, that is, with a Putinian bluff? Adnkronos asked Alessandro Politi, director of the Nato Defense College Foundation.
“The red lines are for the media’s use and consumption. Nuclear weapons are serious weapons that have cast their shadow over the entire Northern Hemisphere during the Cold War, which was cold for Europeans but very hot outside: while the guns were silent here, the same did not happen in Korea, between Arabs and Israelis, in Vietnam, in Africa, during the coups in Latin America. We have externalized the European war, as we did with toxic waste. The atomic bomb is threatened by Putin’s ‘satellite’ figures, not by him, in a game of roles”. And when Putin talks about “NATO missiles on Russian soil”? “He says something that is not on the table: NATO supplies Ukraine only with non-lethal equipment, and training that does not take place on Ukrainian soil. There is no consensus within the Alliance on the supply of weapons, so the countries that support Ukraine have organized themselves in the Ramstein Group in a multi-bilateral system with the USA”, explains Politi.
The European Parliament has approved a motion calling on member states to lift restrictions on the use of Western weapons against military targets on Russian soil, with Italian members voting overwhelmingly against. “Parliament legitimately expresses its positions, but on these issues it is the governments that decide. And the Americans, above all, have always been very cautious about what types of weapons to supply, starting with the Abrams tanks. Which they only granted to unblock the Germans’ reluctance on the Leopards. It’s the same with missiles. In May, after the vote in Congress on aid, the situation seemed to have changed, in reality they continue to say that their missiles will not be used on Russian soil. The latest development in this saga is the green light for the English missiles, the Storm Shadows, which, having American components, must still receive the green light from Washington. For the rest, the French, Italians and Germans have very few missiles to deliver to the Ukrainians. If Europe really wants to reconstitute a conventional deterrence – given that the nuclear one is guaranteed above all by the United States – it must prepare to invest many more resources in this field. It will take many years. In the meantime, there is no magic weapon that can resolve the conflict. The Germans spoke of Wunderwaffen, miraculous devices that would decide the fate of the war. Instead, wars are not won except with a combination of weapons and factors. The missiles in Kyiv will arrive, and they can be used to hit strategic targets. But they will be few, cursed and not immediately”.
In recent days there was the attack on the Russian ammunition depot, a major blow by Ukraine. “And it was done with drones probably produced in Ukraine and with little money. Since the beginning of the war in Kyiv they understood that they had to start building their own arsenal, but in the case of long-range missiles it is a long process, it is a technology that must be developed, tested and then deployed correctly”. The attack on the ammunition depot is an important piece according to Politi, while the ‘breakthrough’ in the Kursk governorate should not be exaggerated. “General Zaluzhny, former head of the armed forces ‘dismissed’ and sent to be ambassador in London, was against this offensive thrust, which at this moment is substantially at a standstill. Obviously it is not a territorial issue, Zelensky wants a negotiation with the Russians before the American elections in November and was looking for a symbolic exchange token. Lavrov has denied any contact as long as the Ukrainians are on Russian soil. These deep strikes are not useful on a political level, but on a morale level, both among the population and among the troops, and for the international image of a country that proves capable of fighting back,” continues the expert.
Are the two sides really willing to sit down at a table? According to Politi, “both sides have suffered unsustainable losses. Putin is ready to negotiate, but we must know that some of his demands will be unacceptable, not only for the Ukrainians, but for all Europeans. If the principle that borders are changed by cannon fire is accepted, Europe becomes a very dangerous place. Even for the Russians: for example, could Kaliningrad then return to having a German or Polish name? This is why the United States is moving cautiously. Is Biden accused of being old and hesitant? But he is someone who knows the grammar of the Cold War by heart and does not want to risk nuclear escalation, it is not in the interests of the Americans. Nor of the Russians: during the Cuban missile crisis, Moscow negotiated to stop the escalation. Summing up a series of conversations and writings from 1962, Fidel Castro told Khrushchev: ‘we are ready to die for the revolution. Homeland or death.’ And Nikita replied: ‘It’s not enough to stop the Yankees. We don’t.’ Even Macron who had played with the presence of French troops on Ukrainian soil, then with the use of French missiles. So far the only Ukrainian news is an attack with French SCALPs against the Russian fleet in Crimea, not in Russia. More than a strategic ambiguity, as he called it, it is a strategic gesticulation, considered dangerous by his advisors, who advised him to be cautious”.
Can’t sanctions be a way to force Putin to negotiate starting from positions that are not unrealistic? “We have reached 14 packages, but I think it’s time to review them: some should be maintained, others are self-destructive. They damage general European interests without achieving anything for the Russian government. They make sense if sooner or later they have an effect. From historical experience we know that they don’t necessarily help change regimes. They haven’t been enough for decades with Cuba, Iran, Burma, North Korea, I don’t think Russia is that different”.
What do you think of the new Commissioner for Defense and Space? “I see a commission structured as a matrix with many intersections. Either there will be great harmony in the college or we risk paralyzing internal struggles in which von der Leyen will probably think she is the only one capable of arbitrating. And then it must be remembered that it will be a commissioner for the Defense industry, and there are not many industries in Europe. If we want to get it off the ground, we need to look at the countries that already have weight. We are in a very particular phase of European construction, fragile also because the most important governments are fragile. I sincerely hope that any large European program will use NATO as an incubator, because you cannot improvise the management of complex armament programs. There are positive examples: aircraft of great importance for Europe such as the Tornado and the Eurofighter were built thanks to an agency in the NATO system. The Commission will acquire its importance in this field but it is not something that can be done in five years, otherwise you will exchange dreams for reality. Strengthening the European pillar of NATO can only be positive. If we can be more coherent, organized and standardized it will already be a great achievement. Then we can talk about a common European defense”. (by Giorgio Rutelli)
#Nuclear #War #Europe #Heres #Happen #Ukrainian #Missiles