|
Vladimir Putin Does Not Make Empty Threats
A few month ago a leak of a call between high ranking German officers appeared. They were discussing the possible deployment of a German Taurus cruse missile to Ukraine to be used against Russian targets.
It became obvious from the leak that any such deployment, aiming and firing of such a weapon can not happen without the participation of staff from the country that donated the weapon. This applies to the U.S. ATAMCS missiles, to the French/British SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles just as it would apply to the German Taurus cruse missile:
Gerhartz, [commander of the Luftwaffe], and his subordinates discussed how much Taurus training and support Germany might need to provide if Taurus missiles were sent to Ukraine, and whether this would include targeting and programming information.
…
Gerhartz said: ″When it comes to mission planning, for example, I know how the British do it, they do it completely in reachback [i.e. with support from people who are not forward-deployed]. They also have a few people on the ground, they do that, the French don't. So, they also QC the Ukrainians when loading the SCALP, because Storm Shadow and SCALPS are relatively similar from a purely technical point of view. They've already told me that, yes, for God's sake, they would also look over the shoulders of the Ukrainians when loading the Taurus.
The U.S. is currently discussing (archived) to allow Ukraine to use of long range weapons against targets within Russia, that is beyond targets on Ukrainian and former Ukrainian ground.
This would be qualitative transformation of the war in Ukraine into a NATO war with Russia.
The Russian President Vladimir Putin made this unequivocally clear.
Answer to a media question, September 12 2024, Kremlin.ru
Question: Over the past few days, we have been hearing statements at a very high level in the UK and the United States that the Kiev regime will be allowed to strike targets deep inside Russia using Western long-range weapons. Apparently, this decision is either about to be made, or has already been made, as far as we can see. This is actually quite extraordinary. Could you comment on what is going on?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin:
…
[T]he Ukrainian army is not capable of using cutting-edge high-precision long-range systems supplied by the West. They cannot do that. These weapons are impossible to employ without intelligence data from satellites which Ukraine does not have. This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or US satellites – in general, NATO satellites. This is the first point.
The second point – perhaps the most important, the key point even – is that only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. Ukrainian servicemen cannot do this.
Therefore, it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not.
If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement – it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine. This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically.
This will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.
Russia has many means to respond to such threats. This includes direct fire on targets within France, the UK and the U.S. itself.
Vladimir Putin is not known for making empty threats.
NATO, Biden (if involved at all), and Blinken are a feckless trio. Outside of sheer incompetence, here are some reasons why I think these fools are all over the place. All thoughts are welcomed.
1. Balancing Deterrence and Diplomacy:
The U.S. and NATO are attempting to maintain a delicate balance between deterring Russian aggression and avoiding direct confrontation that could escalate into a broader conflict, potentially even nuclear. This leads to sometimes ambiguous or shifting messaging, where strong support for Ukraine is combined with efforts to avoid provoking Russia too aggressively.
Example: While providing Ukraine with military aid, NATO has refrained from sending troops directly into the conflict to avoid a direct war with Russia.
2. Differing National Interests within NATO:
NATO is an alliance of many countries with differing priorities. Some NATO members, particularly those in Eastern Europe (like Poland or the Baltic states), want a much more aggressive stance against Russia, while others, such as Germany or France, have been more cautious due to their economic and energy ties with Russia. As a result, NATO’s collective actions can appear inconsistent, reflecting these internal divisions.
Example: Germany initially hesitated on supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine, while other NATO countries pushed for quicker, more decisive military support.
3. Gradual Escalation of Support:
The U.S. and NATO have slowly increased their support for Ukraine over time, as the conflict evolved and the situation on the ground changed. Early in the war, the U.S. and its allies focused on defensive aid. As Ukraine demonstrated resilience, Western powers began sending more advanced weaponry. This gradual escalation can seem inconsistent, but it reflects a cautious approach to avoid immediate escalation with Russia.
Example: Initially, the U.S. and NATO hesitated to provide advanced systems like HIMARS or tanks, but later reversed that decision as the war progressed.
4. Uncertainty About Putin’s Goals:
Western leaders have often had to respond to the unpredictability of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategies and objectives. Russia’s evolving tactics in the war and Putin’s rhetoric about red lines and nuclear threats have caused Western policymakers to adjust their positions in real-time, sometimes making it appear as though there is inconsistency.
Example: When Russia annexed parts of eastern Ukraine or threatened nuclear escalation, the U.S. and NATO shifted their messaging, making certain forms of aid contingent on Russia’s actions.
5. Public Opinion and Domestic Pressures:
Public opinion within the U.S. and NATO countries can shift, particularly as the conflict drags on. Political leaders, including President Biden and Secretary Blinken, are under pressure to respond to domestic concerns (e.g., rising energy prices, economic impacts) while still maintaining support for Ukraine. This balancing act can sometimes result in shifts in policy that appear inconsistent to observers.
Example: In the U.S., there has been a growing divide in public opinion, with some segments advocating for more aid to Ukraine, while others argue for reducing involvement due to economic costs.
6. Ukraine’s Changing Needs:
Ukraine’s needs on the battlefield have evolved throughout the war, and the type of support that the West provides has had to adapt. Early in the war, the focus was on small arms and defensive systems. As the war has continued, Ukraine has needed more sophisticated weaponry to counter Russia’s evolving strategy.
Example: As Ukraine transitioned from defense to offense, its requests for Western artillery, air defense systems, and tanks increased, prompting shifts in Western policy.
7. Communication Strategy:
Diplomatic communication often includes mixed messages as a deliberate strategy to keep opponents off balance or to maintain strategic ambiguity. This ambiguity can be perceived as inconsistency, but it is sometimes a calculated approach to keep options open.
Example: The U.S. and NATO have sometimes kept their exact military commitments vague to prevent Russia from predicting their responses.
Posted by: Dogon Priest | Sep 13 2024 12:05 utc | 89
|
