Maroc - EURASIAREVIEW.COM - A la une - 04/Jul 20:48

Breaking Taboos: Western Weapons Against Russian Targets

The long debate over whether Ukraine should be allowed to attack military targets in Russia with Western weapons is coming to an end. The more Russia bombs Ukraine, the closer we are to removing the red lines. Would this act change the course of the war? After an unprecedented and unimaginable resistance of the Ukrainians in the face of Russia with pronounced superpowers of armament, at the moment when the fall of the second largest city of Ukraine – Kharkiv [Charkiw], could be on the verge, Perednimi changed the strategy of action . The Ukrainian leadership received the requested permission from NATO partners to attack targets in Russia with Western weapons. During his state visit to Germany, French President Emmanuel Macron called for Ukraine to be allowed to strike military targets in Russia with Western weapons. German Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), based on international law, also gave Kiev such permission. Meanwhile, the General Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, had previously expressed his favor, as well as representatives of the government in Great Britain, Poland and the Baltic countries. The question now is, will this correction of the western course lead us faster towards a big war between Russia and NATO? We thus enter the not only theoretical ground on the perspective of the war, which two years ago, could not even be imagined. Previously, we had the rhetorical moves of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, to send Western ground troops to Ukraine, then there are the statements of the British Foreign Minister David Cameron that Ukraine should be allowed to decide for itself how and where to use British systems such as the Storm, etc. The taboos that existed until now are gradually weakening and we can see that both Russia and the Western countries are continuing the spiral of escalation. The previous red lines with the repeated formula that “we will not become warring parties” are being modified more and more. “I’m not saying that taboos have already been completely abandoned – but they are becoming more and more fragile”,[1] says the German expert Wolfgang Richter [Wolfgang Richter]. Kharkiv increases the spiral of escalation In Germany, some politicians and experts are advocating for NATO countries to shoot down Russian drones and missiles over western Ukraine from their territory. It is about the suggestion that comes, among others, from the expert at the Security Conference in Munich, Nico Lange. The idea is to protect the skies over western Ukraine about 70 kilometers deep from countries like Poland.[2] Alarm bells are ringing even more now on the eve of the possible fall of the city of Kharkiv. See for this, the German federal government gave Ukraine a free hand to defend the city of Kharkiv against Russian attacks. As government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit announced, the Ukrainian armed forces are also allowed to defend themselves against shelling from the Russian border area with German-supplied weapons.[3] Shortly before the federal government, the US government had already confirmed that it had given Ukraine permission to use US weapons to a limited extent against military targets on Russian soil. But that only applies to counterattacks in defense of the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, a US government official said.[4] Germany is thus joining the American position. Attacks on Russian territory, yes, but only to protect the Kharkiv region. The second largest city of Ukraine – Kharkiv is the target of almost daily attacks, mainly from Russian territory. According to government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit, “Russia prepared, coordinated and carried out attacks in the Kharkiv area from positions in the immediately adjacent Russian border area”.[5] Under these circumstances, the Ukrainians should be able to repel the Russian march and protect their city. No-fly zone – understandable, but not feasible Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly called for a no-fly zone for various reasons. He sometimes justified these tears in the address of Perednim by referring to the urgent need to secure humanitarian corridors, sometimes he did it in support of legitimate defense against Russian counterattacks. But this tear of his, clearly, aims to draw NATO into the war of aggression of Russia against Ukraine. From the Ukrainian point of view, this is completely understandable. If at the beginning of the war the possibility of creating a “no-fly zone” was discussed, now that idea can be treated more seriously and quickly become a factual reality on the ground. In the meantime, the prednemonic experts have on the discussion tables a wide range of possibilities for coordinating the war for the benefit of Ukraine. According to military experts, in this case, the deployment of long-range air defense systems on the eastern borders of NATO members, specifically in Poland, Slovakia and Romania can take over the defense of the western parts of Ukraine, so that the defense Ukraine’s air force to be concentrated in the east. This would be Perednim’s direct contribution to the aid of Ukraine and its army’s General Staff, enabling Ukrainian forces to concentrate on other areas of direct combat. In this case, the creation of a “no-fly zone” could actually be considered an act of war against the Russian air force, which automatically creates the possibility of a major all-out war.However, the creation of no-fly zones is not only a matter of the political will of a party or neighborhood of states. These zones can only be established by the authorities of a country or by international organizations such as the United Nations. Some of the reasons that served to establish the no-fly zones: 1. National Security: To protect critical infrastructure or prevent terrorist threats. 2. Military Defense: In case of military conflicts to control airspace and prevent air attacks. 3. Special events: For large public events, such as sporting events or important official visits, to ensure the safety of participants. 4. Environmental reasons: To protect certain natural areas from pollution or to preserve wildlife. The three areas where the no-fly zone was applied: • Iraq (1991-2003): After the Gulf War, the United Nations established no-fly zones in Iraq to protect the Kurdish population in the north and the Shiite population in the south. • Libya (2011): During the Libyan Civil War, NATO established a no-fly zone to protect civilians from airstrikes by Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. • Washington, D.C.: The United States capital has a permanent no-fly zone around the White House and government buildings. In the three no-fly zones established since the end of the Cold War and enforced by the US and various NATO allies over northern Iraq (1991), Bosnia (1992) and Libya (2011), u b I possible since the opponents were militarily weak and did not have nuclear weapons. Implementation and monitoring No-fly zones are usually monitored by military forces or government agencies responsible for aviation and air defense. Violations of these zones can result in strict measures, including the interception and forced landing of aircraft that do not respect the restrictions. The decision to use weapons against Russian targets for Ukraine is a strategic decision. It will apply to a specific area, geographically limited to western Ukraine, without precisely defining its extent. The proposed geographic limitation of the measure to one part of Ukraine is equally dangerous, but raises additional questions. Which part of Ukraine exactly needs to be protected and why this part? Conversely, does this mean that the West doesn’t care about the rest of Ukraine and we can watch the people over there being slaughtered? The concept has not been thought through.[6] Ultimately, such a move would severely test the hard-won unity of the alliance partners. In this case, the term “ban” takes on unrealistic connotations, because only the UN Security Council can issue such a ban. And this will not happen as long as China and Russia are permanent members of this mechanism, even with veto power. From a military point of view, a no-fly zone is about intervening in the war with its own air force and preventing Russian missiles or warplanes from penetrating Ukrainian airspace. This means not only missile defense, but also the downing of Russian planes and attacks against the bases from which they take off. If this type of no-fly zone is insisted upon, then de facto it would be open war between NATO and Russia. It seems that this is precisely the reason why military experts consider this suggestion as irresponsible. Moscow’s harsh reaction Moscow has reacted harshly to these current developments, threatening again to use nuclear weapons. Russia is not bluffing, former president Dmitry Medvedev warned about tactical nuclear weapons, which, unlike strategic nuclear weapons, are intended for use on the battlefield and are not intended to completely destroy the enemy. Medvedev, one of the agitators of the Russian political elite, in light of these discussions, has once again threatened by warning of possible nuclear escalation. Immediately after that, Russian military exercises with tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons followed along the borders of Ukraine and the eastern members of the NATO alliance. During the exercises, the transfer of nuclear weapons from storage, the arming of tactical nuclear missiles and preparations for launching missiles will take place. Russian forces will use the Iskander-M systems, which can launch 9M723-1 ballistic missiles or 9M728 cruise missiles that can carry tactical nuclear warheads ranging from five to 50 kilotons. During the drills, the latest Kinzhal Kh-47M2 hypersonic missiles and Kh-32 cruise missiles (both capable of carrying nuclear warheads) will be fired from Russian bombers capable of carrying weapons such as the Mig-31. The Russian Ministry of Defense has announced that such armed aircraft will conduct patrol flights.[7] Russia is confident that all long-range weapons used by Ukraine are under the control of NATO troops, Medvedev said. This is not military support, this is participation in a war against us. The firepower of the NATO weapons used is constantly increasing. “That is why no one can rule out today that the conflict is entering its final phase,” [8] he explained, referring to nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry claimed that the West had wanted its weapons to be used against targets in Russia from the start. In an interview with the German daily Berliner Zeitung, security expert Wolfgang Richter clearly states that, “nuclear deterrence works reciprocally – so advisers in Moscow will also think about how realistic such scenarios are. Of course, the Kremlin also knows that a nuclear mission against NATO is crazy.”[9] As military experts claim, carrying out such exercises does not mean launching real nuclear warheads, but primarily their simulations of the same size and weight. The main purpose of the exercises is to demonstrate the possibility of launching tactical nuclear strikes. Experts are unanimous when they talk about the consequences of using nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, which Medvedov threatens. A strategic nuclear strike against any of the nuclear powers, in this case against the nuclear powers that are members of NATO, would be an act of premeditated suicide, because both sides have second-strike capabilities. A tactical nuclear strike against the Ukrainians would also be pointless, as Russia would also put its own troops at risk. However, “if a situation arises in which Moscow believes that Russia’s political existence or the nuclear balance with the US is at risk, then I can well imagine that the calculus of risk will change and that this barrier will fall at some point.” “, security expert Wolfgang Richter concludes in the said interview. This conclusion is consistent with that of the schools of thought that maintain that a limited nuclear war in the region is feasible. In this case, both Moscow and the West are playing with fire. It was no accident, however, that the five permanent members of the Security Council and the recognized nuclear powers agreed in January 2022 with the conclusion that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. The situation is particularly dangerous in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. War rhetoric has completely returned, while the media increasingly portrays the war with Russia, but also the possibility of its second front in the Balkans, as almost inevitable. We are thus back on the eve of the beginning of the Second World War. We are in front of a completely crazy game. Not only does Russia not show the slightest sign that it wants to withdraw, it reiterates that its goal is to secure its strategic security interests, publicly announced before the invasion of Ukraine.[10] In addition, Russia meanwhile, whether through its satellites [like Serbia’s work in the Balkans] or real partners [China, India…] has started new offensives on the broad front of the battle in Ukraine, as well as on the geopolitical one – globally. This positioning of Russia in front of Perednim does not at all exclude the high risks that could lead the continent to Armageddon. Conclusion  German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius justified the federal government’s decision as a “strategic adaptation to changing situations”. This decision is right and at the right time, it is already being judged in the pre-religious circles. “We adapted to the situation and adjusted our strategy,” the SPD politician said at a meeting with his Moldovan counterpart, Anatolie Nosatii, in the capital Chisinau. Russia should never be allowed to gain permanent control of Ukraine even after a possible military victory in its east. Moscow is now clear that the option of testing the risk of a third world war, using nuclear weapons, is irrational; it can only exist once. And then never again. Supporters of the idea of ​​the accelerated application of the no-fly zone therefore argue that the Third World War has already begun with the attack on Ukraine, while Putin’s efforts to open war fronts in the Baltics and the Balkans are the best evidence that he it must be stopped now and immediately. If NATO does not stop Putin now, later, after Ukraine is destroyed, he will take measures against the Baltic states, but also encourage Serbia to break out the war in the Balkans and then against the EU and NATO itself for it. change the world order. Footnotes1. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/geopolitik/ukraine-krieg-deutsche-waffen-gegen-russische-ziele-werden-nichts-aendern-li.22205442. https://www.dw.com/de/westliche-truppen-f%C3%BCr-die-ukraine-fallen-die-tabus/a-692062833. https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/bundesregierung-scholz-einsatz-deutsche-waffen-ukraine-100.html4. Ibd 5. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/ukraine-waffen-deutschland-102.html6. Rolf Nikel, ambasador dhe nënpresident DGAP-së: https://dgap.org/de/forschung/publikationen/die-gefahr-eines-atomkriegs-ist-real7. https://www.geopolitika.news/analize/tjedna-analiza-zorana-metera-rusi-ce-udariti-na-americke-baze-u-europi-europski-rat-kao-uvod-u-svjetski/8. https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/bundesregierung-scholz-einsatz-deutsche-waffen-ukraine-100.html9. Ibd10. https://www.geopolitika.news/analize/tjedna-analiza-zorana-metera-rusi-ce-udariti-na-americke-baze-u-europi-europski-rat-kao-uvod-u-svjetski/