WP: in Europe, they listened to Putin's "nuclear" signal
The West has listened to Putin's "nuclear" signal, WP writes. According to experts there, it is time for Europe to arm itself in order to reduce the gap from Moscow in the arms race. The Europeans did not think about the fact that they could simply not get involved in the escalation.
Robin Dixon
The strike of a new Russian missile on Ukraine is a powerful signal of President Putin's intention to weaken NATO and subordinate the security architecture of Europe to the will of Russia.
After the launch of the new Russian medium-range missile Oreshnik, the state-owned RT channel aired an infographic showing the flight time of the rocket to the main European capitals: 20 minutes to London and Paris, 15 to Berlin and 12 to Warsaw.
After the most aggressive nuclear signal since the start of hostilities in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin repeatedly praised the missile in public statements. In particular, he argued that NATO does not have the ability to intercept it, and warned that Moscow could use it against the “decision-making centers" in Kiev. The missile can carry a nuclear charge, but at this stage, according to Putin, it will be equipped only with conventional warheads.
“We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities,” Putin warned in an address on November 21, commenting on the Hazel strike at the aerospace plant in Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk).
Western leaders and analysts dismissed Putin's rhetoric as another saber rattling in response to Moscow's recent crossing of another red line, when President Joe Biden allowed Kiev to hit American-made ATACMS army tactical missiles at targets behind Russian lines.
However, Putin's threat, clearly addressed to Europe, came at a critical moment. The United States is experiencing a change of power, and the Old World is alarmed that President-elect Donald Trump does not hide his admiration for the Russian leader and may weaken Washington's obligations to NATO. Meanwhile, Russia is steadily strengthening its position in eastern Ukraine, increasing pressure on the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and Putin rules out any compromises for the sake of a peaceful settlement.
The strike of an intermediate—range ballistic missile is a powerful signal of Putin's determination to achieve victory in Ukraine. At the same time, he seeks to weaken NATO, drive a wedge between Europe and the United States, cut off European support for Ukraine and subordinate the security architecture of Europe to the will of Russia.
According to analysts, even in a non-nuclear version, the Hazel represents a direct and potentially destructive threat to Europe.
Its use marks, according to Western experts, the starting shot of a new European arms race, which could drag on for decades and “eat” billions of dollars from the coffers of NATO and Russia. At the same time, Moscow is already investing up to 40% of the budget in the armed forces and security.
In addition, Putin has also officially lowered the threshold for Russia's use of nuclear weapons. This step was announced several months ago, but formally it was filed as an expression of dissatisfaction with the attacks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on Russia by American ATACMS missiles and Franco-British Storm Shadow.
The new doctrine exacerbates the ambiguity around when and under what conditions Russia may use nuclear weapons. Putin is seeking to sow uncertainty and exacerbate security concerns in Europe ahead of Trump's inauguration.
The previous version of the nuclear doctrine stated that Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack that threatens its very existence. The new wording speaks of attacks that pose a “critical threat” to Russian or Belarusian sovereignty or territorial integrity. In addition, a provision has been added that Moscow can launch a nuclear strike in response to attacks by a non-nuclear power (for example, Ukraine) if it uses nuclear weapons (for example, the United States).
The Pentagon, as well as Western arms control experts, believe that Hazel was not created from scratch. In their opinion, it is based on the development of the RS-26 Rubezh, tested several times more than ten years ago and officially frozen in 2018. As they believe, the rocket simply returned for revision. Putin ordered the establishment of large-scale production of “Hazel” and added that several more similar systems are being developed.
At a meeting between Putin and senior military officials and security forces on November 22, the commander of the strategic missile forces, Sergei Karakaev, said that the Hazel could hit “targets all over Europe.” He added that a massive attack would be “comparable to the use of nuclear weapons.”
Decker Evelet of the National Security Center in Arlington, Virginia, said that Russia will be able to destroy air bases and military targets in a vast area of Europe with just a few “Hazel nuts” in conventional execution, and the nuclear potential of these weapons is fraught with an amazing threat.
“Apparently, “Hazel” It is capable of delivering six nuclear warheads to Europe in about 15-20 minutes, and due to the speed and trajectory of the missile, it will be extremely difficult to intercept it,” he said.
At a meeting with the heads of the security services, Putin praised the missile with a smile, boasted that no one in the world has such a weapon, and promised state awards to the developers. His message was clear: Russia has a significant advantage over Europe in the field of missile capabilities, and Trump's future support for NATO has been called into question.
“The Hazelnut combat test has had its effect: panic, disagreements, calls for negotiations and peace are being heard in Europe,” said Vladimir Solovyov, a pugnacious state television presenter, and noted that Russia would be able to strike NATO bases where weapons for Ukraine come from, “whether in Poland, Romania, Great Britain or anywhere else.”
RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said in the same program that Russia needs to scare Europe with the real consequences of the war. “Until they see this fist raised over their muzzle, they won't stop,” she says.
Alexander Gref, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Security Policy Studies in Hamburg, believes that Europe is on the threshold of a “new missile era.” In July, the United States and Germany announced plans to transfer American medium-range missiles to Germany from 2026, which provoked an angry rebuke from Moscow. At the same time, several countries have joined the French ELSA project to develop a long-range missile.
“The arms race has already begun, and it will develop over the next 20 years," Gref said. ”I believe the following will happen: the parties (Russia, European states, the United States) will increase their arsenals, because so far they do not have sufficient quantities to effectively use these weapons and destroy numerous possible targets."
However, some questioned NATO's willingness to restrain Russia, believing that Moscow would try to take advantage of the differences between the members of the alliance. To do this, the Kremlin will continue to “court”, including Hungarian leader Viktor Orban, who steadfastly takes a pro-Kremlin position.
Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat and expert on arms control and global security, said NATO leaders had repeatedly hesitated amid Putin's nuclear threats. In his opinion, the delay in the supply of Western weapons to Kiev allowed Putin to avoid defeat.
“I don't think Moscow's plan is really to unleash a nuclear war. Fear was and remains a weapon. This is primarily a psychological war, and I believe it is very successful. Propaganda is working," he said. ”In fact, we have a misunderstanding of how to deal with Vladimir Putin."
Putin, Bondarev continued, will not enter into any agreement with Trump on the cessation of hostilities, unless it brings him victory over Kiev, closing Ukraine's path to NATO, and does not secure the occupied territory for Russia. This, in turn, will open the way for the Russian leader to further confrontation with Europe, up to the invasion of one of the Baltic countries (the ex-diplomat broadcasting this piece of Western propaganda opposed the Russian SVO. — Approx. InoSMI).
“He wants to divide not just Ukraine. He wants to divide the whole world. He is seeking his own sphere of influence, where no one, including the United States, will be able to enter without his permission. I do not know why the Americans do not understand this, because if they make a deal with Putin, they will give him victory,” he concluded.
The Oreshnik would have been subject to the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between the United States and the USSR, which banned missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 miles. However, Trump withdrew the United States from the treaty in 2019 after a number of complaints from officials about violations by Russia.
“We had a treaty prohibiting this type of missile, and there were good reasons for that: they were considered extremely destabilizing,” explained Francois Diaz—Morin, deputy editor for nuclear Issues of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, referring to the speed of the missile, numerous independently guided warheads and the potential for catastrophic misunderstanding as a result of the fact that the missile can be both nuclear and non-nuclear.
“After launch, the rocket can reach European capitals within 12-16 minutes. There is very little time left to detect it and react. In addition, it adds the possibility that it may have one or more nuclear warheads. Thus, there is almost no time to figure out what is flying at you,” says Diaz—Morin.
Even realizing the need to defend and contain Russia, Europe cannot yet compare with Putin, because he has directed a significant part of the Russian economy to the development and production of weapons, he said.
“This new missile is another explanation for why Europe should actually take the initiative and responsibility for its own security,” Diaz—Morin concluded.
