USA’s debatable response to Russia with global significance

By Editorial Staff

In the complex arena of global geopolitics, few issues are as inherently tense and potentially explosive as the relationship between the United States, NATO, and Russia. Recent USA and NATO action and statements from the Kremlin have once again ignited debate and concern worldwide, prompting a measured yet firm response from Washington and its NATO allies.

The latest chapter in this ongoing saga unfolded with a warning from the Kremlin, echoing through the halls of international diplomacy. It has emanated from an announcement conducted by the United States of America. The White House declared in the recent NATO summit held on 9-11 July 2024 in Washington that it would place long-range weapons in Germany, beginning in 2026. These weapons involve Tomahawk cruise missiles. These weapons to be positioned there are meant for serving as a deterrent for Russia.

According to an 18 July 2024 article by Moscow Times, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said “I’m not ruling out any options,” as quoted  by the state-run Interfax news agency. “Considering the combined capabilities of NATO member countries, we must calibrate our responses without any internal checks in terms of what, where and when to deploy,” he added, describing Moscow’s preference for the “widest possible optionality.”

The German Defense Minister, Boris Pistorius, stated that the planned U.S. weapons deployment constitutes in itself a response to Russia’s Iskander short-range ballistic missiles positioned in the western Kaliningrad region. This region is wedged between NATO members Poland and Lithuania and separated from the rest of Russia.

The German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, lauded the plan, calling it ‘something of deterrence and it’s securing peace’. Nevertheless, Washington’s move has caused criticism in Germany, even among members of Scholz’s Social Democrats. Notwithstanding, to support the decision, Scholz told reporters at a NATO summit in Washington “It is a necessary and important decision at the right time.”

The Kremlin then overtly cautioned that the deployment of American missiles in Germany could turn European capitals into targets for Russian missiles. Ryabkov said Moscow would adopt and implement compensatory measures in a way “we consider the most acceptable, if German officials justify their escalation under the pretext that we have something in this region.”

“Kaliningrad is no exception in terms of our absolute determination to do everything necessary to cast aside those who may be harboring aggressive intentions and who are trying to provoke us into certain steps that are undesirable for anyone and fraught with further complications.”

In its 11 July 2024 story, Al Jazeera reported that the Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told a Russian state TV reporter “We are taking steady steps towards the Cold War. All the attributes of the Cold War with the direct confrontation are returning.”

In response to the Kremlin, a spokesperson of the U.S. State Department attempted to carefully articulate a stance that reflects not only current tensions but also the strategic calculations of Western powers. The spokesperson, Matthew Miller, said that the United States and NATO harbor no intention of initiating military conflict with Russia. He nevertheless highlighted that any aggression against a NATO member state would trigger what he described as an “overwhelming response.” He said that the United States and NATO “do not seek a military conflict with Russia… but any military action directed against a NATO Ally would trigger an overwhelming response.”

Analysis

This exchange underscores the delicate balance of power and diplomacy characterizing relations between these global heavyweights. Some people argue that the United States, as the leader of NATO, shoulders a substantial responsibility in maintaining stability across Europe and beyond. NATO itself, a cornerstone of Western security architecture, operates on principles of collective defense, meaning that an attack on one member is interpreted an attack on all the members.

For Russia, these statements act as a reminder of the West’s steadfast commitment to its allies and interests. The Kremlin, under President Vladimir Putin’s leadership, has consistently sought to assert Russia’s influence on the global stage, often at odds with Western policies and positions. From conflicts in Ukraine to strategic maneuvers in Eastern Europe, Russia’s actions have frequently challenged the unity and determination of NATO.

The response from the U.S. State Department signifies not only a defensive posture but also a strategic signaling to Moscow. It communicates readiness to defend NATO’s territory and interests while simultaneously emphasizing a preference for diplomatic solutions over military escalation. This nuanced approach seeks to mitigate tensions while reaffirming the alliance’s unity and firmness in the face of external threats.

Internationally, reactions to these developments vary. In Europe, where the specter of Russian assertiveness looms large, there lies both support for NATO’s defensive stance and caution against escalation. Countries in Eastern Europe, in particular, maintain a vigilant posture given their proximity to Russia and historical context. Conversely, voices advocating for dialogue and de-escalation stress the importance of avoiding a descent into military confrontation.

Beyond Europe, global stakeholders are also concerned with the implications of this exchange. Nations with strategic partnerships with both NATO and Russia navigate a delicate balance, seeking to preserve diplomatic ties while safeguarding their own interests. Ripple effects of any escalation could extend far beyond the immediate actors involved, disturbing or eliminating global stability and economic dynamics.

In the realm of global security, the interactions between the United States, NATO, and Russia assuredly represent a critical barometer. They reflect broader shifts in international relations, the evolution of military doctrines, and the interplay between diplomacy and strategic deterrence. The current dialogue underscores the importance of clear communication, measured responses, and a commitment to upholding international norms and agreements.

Looking ahead, the trajectory of U.S.-NATO-Russia relations remains uncertain. Much will depend on decisions and actions of key stakeholders, including political leaders, military commanders, and diplomats. The need for dialogue, transparency, and conflict transformation mechanisms stands as paramount in navigating this complex geopolitical landscape.

The response from the United States and NATO to Russia’s warnings serves as a reminder of enduring tensions and high stakes involved. It highlights the delicate dance of diplomacy and deterrence shaping international relations in an increasingly interconnected world. Humans of today have become global citizens, reflecting the growing importance of the concept of global citizenship.

The latter one means that people increasingly see themselves as part of a global community, not just as members of their local or national societies. So, developments remind people of profound repercussions that decisions taken in near or distant capitals can produce on their shared future.

Does the interaction show de-escalation?

The interaction traded between the two titans and intended actions doesn’t at all express the de-escalation of the USA-NATO-Russia conflict. Tensions have persisted, with both sides maintaining firm positions on various geopolitical issues. This ongoing state of affairs suggests that the situation remains tense rather than showing signs of easing.

Moscow Times’ article reads “The arms deployment would mark a return of U.S. cruise missiles to Germany after a 20-year absence. The U.S. deployment of Pershing ballistic missiles in West Germany during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s prompted widespread demonstrations, with hundreds of thousands coming out in protest.

Washington continued stationing missiles through the reunification of Germany and into the 1990s.  But following the end of the Cold War, the United States significantly reduced the number of missiles stationed in Europe as the threat from Moscow receded.”

Moreover, the point that the US and NATO don’t seek military confrontation with Russia remains contentious. Various sources find it incomprehensible to say that you want no war with Russia while you are deploying weapons in Germany.

The White House said it would eventually permanently station the missiles in Germany, and that they would possess significantly longer range than current US systems in Europe. “Exercising these advanced capabilities will demonstrate the United States’ commitment to NATO and its contributions to European integrated deterrence,” it announced in a joint statement with the German government.

Russia’s ambassador in Germany, Sergei Nechayev, notified the German government of further deterioration of relations between Moscow and Berlin, if the deployment is performed. Nechayev said “It is to be hoped that the German political elites will reconsider whether such a destructive and dangerous step, which contributes neither to the security of the Federal Republic of Germany nor the European continent as a whole, is advisable. Not to mention the irreparable damage to German-Russian relations.”

Pistorius told the broadcaster, Deutschlandfunk, that the deployment decision would solve a “very serious gap” in the country’s capabilities where the German army does not own long-range missiles launching from the ground. It only possesses cruise missiles which can be shot by aircraft.

Nonetheless, Ralf Stegner, a member of parliament for Scholz’s Social Democrats, told the Funke media group that the missile decision could prompt the start of a new “arms race”. “This will not make the world safer. On the contrary, we are entering a spiral in which the world is becoming increasingly dangerous,” Stegner alerted.

Sahra Wagenknecht, a prominent far-left figure in Germany, told the Spiegel weekly that US missile deployment intensifies the danger that Germany itself will become a theatre of war.

“NATO countries – spearheaded by the US – are rushing to bolster their defences on the continent in the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasion of neighbouring Ukraine,” states Al Jazeera.

The IPS Journal is the International Politics and Society Journal, a publication covering various topics relating to international politics, global affairs, and societal issues. It is published by the International Political Analysis unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), a German political foundation affiliated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Its 19 July 2024 article reads “The deployment of US missile systems in Germany is not a risk-free silver bullet.”

This article by the platform which is recognized for its rigorous analysis and critical examination of global challenges and trends adds “It was arguably the most surprising news to come out of last week’s NATO summit: In four short sentences, the US, together with the German government, announced its intention to station American land-based  missiles in Germany by 2026. The joint declaration reads as concisely as if it were a mere routine act. However, this step will have far-reaching consequences in terms of security policy. It is indicative of the lack of a serious strategic debate in Germany.”

The IPS Journal further states that there now exist five task forces worldwide which are all due to be fully operationalized by 2028. “At least three of them are focused on the Pacific region. Since 2021, one has been led out of Germany and serves US operations in Europe and Africa. The task forces integrate land, air, sea, space and cyber forces to flexibly engage enemy targets. The main objective is to overcome so-called anti-access and area denial zones in which the enemy seeks to restrict access and movement.”

The main and most feared enemy of NATO is certainly Russia. Enmity between this alliance and this giant assuredly carries implications. The IPS Journal says“Behind this are considerations for deterring Russia, but – and this often remains unacknowledged in public – also for possible warfighting in a crisis.

After all, the basis of successful deterrence is always military capabilities that make it possible to threaten and destroy enemy targets in the event of war,” says the journal before adding “In the event of war, the US stand-off weapons deployed to Germany would probably be used primarily against Russian integrated air defence systems and command and control facilities. ”

The journal points out that according to 2019 NATO military strategy, in the event of a Russian attack, a defense should not only be launched directly at the site of the attack, for example in in the Baltic States. “Instead, NATO is focusing on the possibility of expanding a war geographically to exert pressure elsewhere. Ideally, the hope is that Russia would be forced to cease its original attack.

But there is also another option: Moscow could escalate to the nuclear level in view of its own conventional inferiority in the event of war. Even pre-emptive strikes would be conceivable should the Kremlin come to the conclusion that conventional but precise stand-off weapons in Europe would be able to threaten its own nuclear capabilities.”

Whereas some people uncritically applaud any military investment in the context of the ‘Zeitenwende’, others view it as a pure provocation on the direct path to a Third World War. Zeitenwende is a German term that translates to “turning point” or “epochal change.” It refers to a significant shift or transformation in a particular era, often indicating a major change in policy, direction, or historical period.

“At times, observers seem to suggest that Russia could be completely defeated militarily in the event of war. However, this ignores one of the most fundamental insights of the nuclear age.

As early as 1956, the US strategist William W. Kaufmann came to the conclusion that classic conventional warfare would inevitably end in total nuclear war, that no party could win in any meaningful sense.”

In its 14 July 2024 story quoting the BBC, Global Times- a Chinese state-run newspaper appearing in Chinese and English- said that the move would be the first of its kind since the Cold War. “Such missiles would have been banned under a 1988 treaty between the US and former Soviet Union, but the pact fell apart five years ago, the BBC reported.”

Global Times featured a Chinese military expert who asked for anonymity told this media organization that the ultimate intent behind the decision lies in the deployment of US hypersonic missiles which could better satisfy the actual needs of the US against Russia. “There is no doubt that the potential deployment of US hypersonic weapons in Germany would force Russia to join the arms race and enhance its hypersonic weapon strike coverage. As a countermeasure, Russia might further extend the range of its hypersonic missiles, allowing them to cover the entire European continent, including Germany, the military expert warned,” says Global Times.

“Russia has many options to counter US provocations. The decision to deploy US weapons to Germany might provoke Russia to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Kaliningrad as a countermeasure, which would completely offset the threat posed by Germany’s deployment of US missiles, but leave Europe facing greater security risks, Cui Heng, a scholar from the Shanghai-based China National Institute for SCO International Exchange and Judicial Cooperation.”

Global Times adds that Chinese observers emphasized that the US policy would instead become the opposite of ensuring security to Europe. The media house points out that the observers warn that the policy increasingly places Europe at risk, engendering significant harm, “which aligns with the traditional US strategy of creating a heightened risk of attack to maintain control over its allies.”

“Deploying weapons in Europe ostensibly targets Russia, but in reality it treats European countries as US military bases, stripping them of their sovereignty, experts added.

Germany’s agreement to this deployment enhances its own defense capabilities and strengthens German-American military and security cooperation. However, it also places Europe directly in the crosshairs of US-Russia strategic game. Such an escalation in deployment could also undermine the atmosphere for the crucial US-Russia strategic nuclear negotiations in 2025-26, Cui warned.” 

What can help the current tension to be appeased?

The IPS Journal offers certain advice on how to keep this world safe. “In view of these fundamental and unresolvable risks, an open debate on and analysis of military strategic options for escalation management is needed. These should also include a minimum set of rules of behaviour and targeted communication channels to ensure that not every military incident and every possible miscalculation leads to disaster.

Under no circumstances, however, should the impression arise that the German population is being presented with a fait accompli without any risk assessment. This would open the door to deliberate attempts of creating insecurity and unsettling people from the outside.”

Brookings, formally known as the Brookings Institution, constitutes a prominent American think-tank based in Washington, D.C, with the mission to conduct “in-depth, non-partisan research to improve policy and governance at local, national and global levels.” This nonprofit public policy organization’s advice also contains an open dialogue between the two titans. “The United States and Europe should combine pressure with an openness to cooperation on discrete issues of common interest.

This could include a high-level U.S.-Russia dialogue on strategic stability. At a minimum, the United States and Russia should maintain channels to reduce the possibility of inadvertent escalation, particularly where the two countries’ militaries are operating in close proximity. And the United States should signal its willingness, over time, to improve relations with Russia if Moscow reconsiders its revanchism.” Revanchism means a foreign policy intended for revenge or the recovery of lost territories.