Will NATO destroy Russian missiles against Ukraine? Hypotheses and comments
The words of the general secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, commented and analyzed by politicians and analysts
At least in Italy, the controversies triggered by the declarations with which the general secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, effectively suggested a change of strategy for NATO by urging the use of the weapons made available to Kyiv on Russian territory have not subsided. But beyond the opposition of our entire government, what do you think elsewhere of what for some is an isolated flight forward?
Is NATO in?
There are some last-minute developments in the recent statements to the Economist with which Stoltenberg opened up to the use of Western weapons on Russian territory .
The topic was at the center of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Atlantic Alliance held yesterday in Sofia in the presence of Stoltenberg himself. The session ended with the approval of a Declaration by a strong majority of the more than 200 parliamentarians present.
After having clarified in point 8 that "Russia can and must suffer a strategic defeat in Ukraine", in the following point 10 the Assembly's determination is underlined to ensure that the 32 NATO members go "beyond incremental and ad hoc steps in their support to Ukraine, adopting a strategy that is based on the goal that Ukraine is provided with everything it needs, as quickly as possible in order to win”.
The meaning of these words is clarified and expanded in the final communiqué of the meeting through the words of the President of the Assembly, Michal Szczerba: “We must accelerate. Give Ukraine everything it needs. Ukraine – and this is the decisive step – can only defend itself if it attacks Russian supply lines and operational bases. It's time to recognize this reality and let Ukraine do what it has to do."
To underline the concept, Szczerba adds that "NATO would be significantly weakened, losing credibility, if we continued to assist it with half measures".
If this were not enough, there are also the again unequivocal statements of the general secretary himself at the meeting: “(Ukraine's) right to self-defense includes striking legitimate targets outside Ukraine.”
Outrage but…
Beyond Matteo Salvini's requests for Stoltenberg's resignation, the opposition of not only the Italian government is now known – but the chorus of no that started from the Roman palaces from Meloni ("I advise greater prudence") to Crosetto to Tajani is that which made more international headlines – to the idea of a change of pace in Ukraine by the West.
An opposition that the researcher at the Institute of International Affairs Nona Mikhelidze cannot explain. In along thread in which he better framed Stoltenberg's words, Mikhelidze highlights that the question posed by the Secretary is actually not simple but elementary: "How to make Ukrainian defense more effective in the Kharkiv region, where the Russians have deployed military infrastructure at the border".
“So”, attacks the researcher, “rather than being scandalized by Stoltenberg's words, perhaps the Italian politicians (I mean the serious ones) who don't like the idea of the Ukrainians hitting the Russian military infrastructures stationed just across the border with Western weapons, they should put forward viable alternatives on how to address this challenge. I understand that they have no valid alternatives, because in reality there aren't any."
Fully in tune with the author of the thread is the analyst Alessandro Politi , for whom Stoltenberg's opinion “is respectable. (…) Deterrence is not the search for escalation”, concludes Politi, thus deeming the concerns of those who brand Stoltenberg's outbursts as reckless if not crazy to be unfounded.
Meanwhile, giving the green light
But such a divisive issue has been in the air for a few weeks now, at least since, last May 3, British Foreign Minister David Cameron stated in an interview with Reuters that Ukraine had every right to strike Russian territory with weapons supplied by London.
Another clear green light came a few hours ago from Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs who, interviewed by the famous CNN anchorwoman Christiane Amanpour, said that the recent Russian military conquests in Ukraine are not only due to the extraordinary mobilization of the Kremlin but also to the "restrictions" imposed by the allies on the type of use of the weapons supplied to Kiev.
Regarding the targets in Russia, Rinkēvičs spoke of "legitimate objectives" that only Western inertia and reluctance prevent from considering.
In the US meanwhile.
But Stoltenberg's real target, i.e. the leader to ferret out, is certainly not on the banks of the Tiber but on those of the Potomac. Fox News , among others, recognized this, commenting on the Secretary's statements under the headline: "NATO head targets Biden by arguing for an end to restrictions on the use of US weapons against Russian targets".
In fact, it is precisely the White House, the broadcaster reminds us, that continues to place vetoes. But in the USA the front is not united, as demonstrated by the letter addressed to the Pentagon by a bipartisan group of parliamentarians calling for an end to the restrictions.
“The Ukrainians have not been able to defend themselves – say the legislators quoted by Fox News – due to the current administration policy”.
But the most authoritative voice in favor of a reversal of the line is none other than that of the speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who in an interview with Voice of America was asked the fateful question on the need to change strategy, providing a very clear reply: " Ukraine must be able to respond. And I think it's not good policy for us to try to micromanage our efforts."
Stoltenberg loose cannon.
But the hypothesis put forward by Stoltenberg and his supporters had infuriated the director of Defense Analysis Gianandrea Gaiani, who classified that of the NATO Secretary in the twin categories of "boisterous declarations" and "egregious gaffes".
“His role – thunders Gaiani, who was an advisor to Matteo Salvini when the leader of the League was at the Interior Ministry – should require Stoltenberg to abstain from suggestions and personal assessments regarding the decisions that the governments and legitimate parliaments of the member states should take” .
For the director of Defense Analysis, Stoltenberg "certainly has many opportunities to support the cause of the use of Western missiles against Russia but in the appropriate forums which are the collegiate ones of the Atlantic Alliance".
It is not clear at this point whether after the approval of the Sofia Declaration that of the NATO Secretary can still be considered a gaffe.
Moreover, Crosetto himself, after having defined Stoltenberg's move forward as a sort of escape, had specified that in any case a decision would be made "within NATO… when the summit takes place in Washington" in July.
In addition to Ukraine, June will certainly be a fiery month on both sides of the Atlantic.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/la-nato-distruggera-i-missili-russi-contro-lucraina-ipotesi-e-commenti/ on Tue, 28 May 2024 08:35:59 +0000.