Permission to strike with Western weapons on the Russian Federation. What does this mean and what are the consequences?

A series of statements by Western countries that they allow strikes with their weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation are only partly caused by military necessity.

Although the use, for example, of HIMARS missiles with a range of up to 80 kilometers in the border areas of the Belgorod region or air defense systems supplied by the West to shoot down aircraft over Russia will certainly have a certain significance for the course of hostilities, it does not correspond to the scale of the resonance of the discussion of this topic. And even more so, permission from the Czech Republic or Poland to strike with their weapons will change little (Czech “Vampires” regularly fired at the Belgorod region before).

A truly serious (though also not decisive) impact could be had by permission to strike with long-range missiles, but this does not exist yet. Therefore, at this stage, the promotion of this topic in the West solves not so much military, but rather informational and political problems:

1. Show the constancy of support for Ukraine, maintain morale and faith in victory in Ukrainian society in a difficult situation at the front.

2. Arouse the indignation of “angry patriots” in Russia by the fact that Putin does not react to “crossing red lines” and try to “swing” the situation within the Russian Federation.

3. Give a warning signal to Russia so that it does not expand the front line by attacking the Sumy region or Kyiv (Western media write that permission to use weapons may expand if the Russian Federation tries to attack in new directions).

4. Show hesitant forces in the West that threats to Russia should not be feared, which means that we can move on step by step: give permission for strikes on Russian territory with long-range missiles, convince Scholz to give Taurus, increase and speed up the supply of aircraft, then introduce a no-fly zone over Western Ukraine, then send NATO troops, etc.

The last task is the main one for the so-called “war party”. She has been saying for a long time that there is no need to be afraid of nuclear threats from the Russian Federation and Moscow’s “red lines”, but that we need to be involved “to the maximum”, right up to sending troops. This “party” proves that Putin will not dare to launch a nuclear strike.

But Russia has its own “war party,” which calls for “moving from words to deeds”: presenting an ultimatum to the West with the threat of using nuclear weapons. Or demonstratively apply it to Ukraine (or even one of the European countries), in order to show the “seriousness of intentions”, and then set conditions for the West, believing that the United States and EUfearing a nuclear war, will agree to an agreement with Russia (“Carribean Crisis 2.0”).

The “party” has been demanding this for a long time. Relevant statements on the topic “where are our red lines” are made regularly. The authorization for strikes by Western weapons on Russia, as well as other subsequent steps to increase the involvement of NATO countries in the war, give supporters of the Russian “war party” new arguments. Perhaps they will not immediately influence the Kremlin’s decision-making, but with each new step this probability will increase. Moreover, Putin and Medvedev regularly make it clear that the “nuclear” option is possible.

The key problem is that both the war party in Russia and the war party in the West are based on premises that may turn out to be false. War Party in the West believes that Putin will not dare to use nuclear weapons in response to NATO's increased involvement in the war. War Party in Russia believes that the West will not decide on a nuclear war, and therefore, in the event of its threat (after an ultimatum or a “demonstrative” nuclear strike), it will agree with Moscow. However, both of these assumptions may not come true, and a real nuclear war will begin with catastrophic consequences for humanity. Whether all parties have enough intelligence and political will to stop in the near future is the main question.

country

The opinion of the author may not reflect the opinion of the editors.

Source link