NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Moscow there is no doubt that this is an act of war.
The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorize long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defense.
Once people have accepted this, then it’s presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument.
The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on American intelligence and targeting. They will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites.
Washington didn’t use these weapons against Russia for three years as it knew it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself.
The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present it as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself constitute an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power.
It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret a situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario.
How would we have reacted if Moscow had sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself?
We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not have been interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent.
President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken, as Russia cannot swirl away.
Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimize the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans allegedly training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia.
“Russia would not dare to retaliate against NATO”
The reluctance by Moscow in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that it wouldn’t dare respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as ”Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed.
Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraint. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO attacking Russia directly is simply too dangerous to go unanswered.
How will Russia respond?
There are several more steps on the escalation ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, possibly introduce North Korean troops, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centers in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves.
Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times has suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. However, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism – salami tactics that aim to chop away at its deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed.
The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations, as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Moscow considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment