NATO vs Russia: Long-range missiles and blockade of Kaliningrad Expert opinion on Caliber.Az

This week's North Atlantic Alliance summit testified to the West's willingness to continue supporting Ukraine. Although so far military supplies from the West have not provided a breakthrough on the Russian-Ukrainian front - the main result of NATO's involvement in the conflict has been the strengthening and military mobilisation of only the Western bloc itself. In addition, the presence of the leaders of Japan, Australia, and South Korea at the Vilnius meeting is a vivid illustration of the Alliance's intention to push back from the springboard that the Russian-Ukrainian war has become for it and go global.

There will be no freezing of the conflict

In the Lithuanian capital, the G7 states have adopted a statement on security guarantees and "permanent" military and financial assistance to Ukraine. Key Western countries pledged to support Kyiv "as long as necessary". This includes a commitment to arm the Ukrainian army, strengthen intelligence sharing, increase training of the Ukrainian military, provide economic assistance, and finance the Ukrainian state's current expenditures. Each of the G7 countries will also work out its bilateral security agreement with Kyiv before the next NATO summit.

The North Atlantic Alliance itself confirmed its readiness to accept Ukraine into its ranks after the war.

The Western bloc has been talking about this since 2008, but now it has promised that when Ukraine is invited, it will not have to fulfill the standard Membership Action Plan. Kyiv is not happy with these proposals. Anticipating this catch, the Ukrainian president initially refused to go to the summit. However, he did go, but on the first day, he spoke so unflatteringly about everything on Twitter that the American delegation was furious. Moreover, on the second day, Zelenskyy threatened not to attend the first meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Council. The Ukrainian leader did not hide his indignation at the West's refusal to invite his country to NATO now and without any conditions.

Russian observers even declared the summit a failure, emphasising the discontent of Western politicians with Zelenskyy. In addition, indeed, it is not just the recent verbal outbursts, but also the fact that Kyiv is still unable to demonstrate any serious success from receiving Western weapons. According to calculations by the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, in five weeks of the counteroffensive, the Ukrainian military has recaptured only about 2/3 of the territory (253 square kilometers) captured by the Russian army over the past six months (392 square kilometers).

This is not much, and not only in absolute numbers but also taking into account the fact that the Russian army has hardly attacked anywhere in the last six months except Bakhmut. In addition, neither the Russians in Bakhmut nor the Ukrainians have achieved virtually any strategic objectives during the current counter-offensive. The situation looks stalemate because, despite the rearmament of the AFU, Kyiv can only account for the equipment it has received by the number of Russian soldiers it has eliminated.

Russian losses are certainly high, but as the Russian opposition Meduza has calculated, by the end of May, they could amount to about 47,000 people, which is about a third less than the previously publicized Ukrainian losses (about 65,000 until March of this year).

The West is well aware that not only has Kyiv failed to develop a successful overall plan for a counter-offensive, but it also has problems even with the basic training of conscripts, some of whom cite the blatant fact that "a day of training and you're in a combat brigade".

Nevertheless, there were no signs in Vilnius of NATO countries reviewing their policy towards Ukraine. Criticism of Kyiv was limited to British Defence Minister Ben Wallace's wish that Ukraine expresses more gratitude to NATO for its assistance.

However, just before the summit, the Ukraine-NATO Council was established, which in itself is a notable achievement, as NATO has only established such a body with Russia. Moreover, it will replace the joint Ukraine-NATO commission, and, unlike the commission, the convening of the Council will not be blocked by any NATO country, as before. Previously, the meetings of the commission were repeatedly blocked by Hungary, which defended the rights of Hungarians in Ukraine's Transcarpathia. Now the United States has put an end to such attempts at sabotage.

Meanwhile, in Vilnius, the Ukrainian government received many promises of additional arms deliveries. The same Norway announced the transfer of the latest NASAMS SAMs and another thousand reconnaissance drones. Kyiv will also soon receive American fighter jets, the last type of major Western weapon systems it has not yet received. Consequently, starting next spring, the Ukrainian army, using fighter jets and SAMs, will be able to attack with more adequate air cover - so far its absence has clearly limited the effectiveness of ground operations.

US presidential national security adviser Jake Sullivan told ABC News that Ukraine is "very likely" to receive F-16 fighter jets from European countries that have these aircraft. That is, they will not be the newest models. Western capitals are not in a hurry to give the Ukrainians the latest weapons, because there are considerable risks associated with their transfer - photos of Leopards shot down with hastily welded-on protective grilles make many people wonder about the effectiveness of the praised Western brands.

In addition, sending Western weapons to the Ukrainian-Russian front is fraught with the possibility of samples and, consequently, technology falling into the hands of the West's opponents. For example, last week the Russian military found itself in possession of the latest British-made Storm Shadow cruise missile. Russian armorers are scrutinizing these samples; moreover, such equipment may be transferred to China and Iran, which are quite adept at creatively reproducing foreign weapons.

Therefore, the West is cautious, realizing the degree of corruption and devastation in the AFU (although the Russian army cannot even cope with such an AFU due to its own mess and corruption). Biden's national security adviser Sullivan also hinted at these problems in an interview with CNN, recalling that NATO candidate countries "must meet certain requirements for democratic reforms, and Ukraine is no exception."

Nevertheless, NATO countries are stepping up arms deliveries to Kyiv. Moreover, weapons are capable of changing the nature of warfare. Firstly, those types of weapons push the limits of what is permissible and undermine the foundations of international law about limiting the cruelty of war. This concerns deliveries of American cluster munitions, which all Western countries (except the United States) have tried to ban, as well as the British shipment of depleted uranium shells.

Secondly, Western countries are providing Kyiv with more and more long-range weapons. On the eve of the Vilnius summit, even Paris began supplying the Ukrainian army with long-range Scalp cruise missiles. These missiles are the French version of the British Storm Shadow, which London handed over to the Ukrainians in May. Both types can hit targets up to 500 kilometers away. At the end of June, there was talk of a possible transfer of American tactical ballistic missiles ATACMS with a range of up to 300 kilometers to the Ukrainian armed forces.

Amidst the low mobility of the front line and under the current version of the conduct of hostilities within Ukraine itself, there is no obvious need for such weapons, so these deliveries are a clear signal. A signal of readiness to expand the theatre of hostilities to the territory of the Russian Federation (and probably Belarus). It should be emphasised that this is being done despite Ukraine's recent series of "violations" of the tacit agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation on the non-aggression of Ukrainian forces on Russian territory.

Simulation of partnership

By the way, a certain solution to Ukraine's membership in NATO could have been found. Firstly, former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen proposed to accept part of the country. This is how West Germany joined NATO. At the time of accession, Western countries did not recognise the German Democratic Republic, and initially, Germany joined NATO without its eastern part.

Secondly, NATO's security guarantees (Article 5) are not as absolute as Western propaganda likes to present them, and the states know how to switch them off at times. The example of Turkey, which often has to fight the terrorist threat on its southern borders alone, shows that these guarantees work only when the collective West, led by the United States, wants them to.

However, they did not construct some original NATO membership options for Kyiv. US President Biden, opposing Ukraine's immediate membership in the Alliance, proposed an alternative - to build security relations with Ukraine "like with Israel". However, the US-NATO-Israel partnership model is irreproducible by definition. Moreover, it is not about the metaphysics and mysticism of this close relationship, but about realpolitik.

This model works effectively only thanks to the constant work of the Jewish diaspora in the West with local politicians and through the promotion of their representatives in the authorities. Without it, even during the Cold War, Western elites would have sold Israel to Arab countries. In addition, the Jewish lobby worked, with material incentives, not only with presidential candidates but also with a wide range of politicians, particularly members of parliament.

Ukraine has no prerequisites for creating such a model. Yes, three years ago, the first Ukrainian MP appeared in Congress, but this achievement pales in comparison to the long-standing Ukrainian diaspora in the United States. It is impossible to compare the Ukrainian diaspora with the Jewish diaspora by any of the parameters, and therefore there is no chance for the implementation of the "Israeli option" proposed by Biden - we can only build an imitation of it.

Processes of global significance

Behind the hustle and bustle of many current events, often seasoned with hypocritical rhetoric about principles and values, one should not forget about macro-processes. The largest military-political bloc is changing its format, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has become a catalyst for this transformation.

Many people do not want to see this. Andrei Kortunov, director general of the Russian government's key "thought factory," the Council on Foreign Affairs, said that "the NATO summit did not solve any of the bloc's fundamental problems." He compared the alliance's increasingly frequent events to the CPSU congresses of the Soviet Union's decline, with their solemn reports of unity and success.

Indeed, NATO has only started holding its annual summits in the last decade, around the mid-2010s. Nevertheless, this is a sign of ascendancy rather than decline. The organisation has moved away from "ad hoc" gatherings to systematic joint policymaking.

NATO as a representative of the "global West" is institutionalized on the wave of its mobilisation in confrontation with one of the largest states (Russia) and preparation for a confrontation with another, even larger state (China). These themes began to emerge on the Alliance's agenda only a decade ago - before, after the end of the Cold War, it was struggling simply to survive, trying to justify its very existence by invading weak countries and suppressing insurgencies and guerrilla movements.

Of course, as the American political scientist Gray Anderson reminded us the other day, "NATO's mission was never originally about amassing military power... Rather, it was intended to bind Western Europe to a much larger project of US-led world order," in which Washington sought concessions from the Europeans on trade and monetary policy.

However, after the end of the Cold War, this model faltered, and the alliance looked atavistic by the late 1990s. In this sense, the admission of many new members as NATO moved eastwards, contrary to all the promises made to Gorbachev, was an attempt to survive. It was successful. Its actual deployment in Ukraine, the largest state in Europe with serious military potential on the borders of strategically important regions of Russia, should also be recognised as a true masterpiece.

The second such triumph was the Alliance's recent move to Russia's northern borders. In the spring of this year, the Alliance welcomed Finland into its ranks, settling almost on the outskirts of St. Petersburg and reaching borders that make it easier to neutralise some of the bases of the Russian strategic forces, as well as hinder the operations of the Russian Northern Fleet.

At the Vilnius summit, it became clear that by the end of the year, another Northern European country, Sweden, could also join the bloc, as Türkiye agreed to open the way to NATO for the Swedes on certain conditions. This is a fundamental shift in European geopolitics, for while Finland has been neutral only since 1945, Sweden has been neutral for two centuries, since Napoleon's time!

Once the Swedes are accepted into its ranks, the bloc will be able to completely paralyse the operations of the Russian Baltic Fleet. Western commentators are already talking about the Baltic as a "NATO sea" and hinting that it is about not only Sweden’s superior navy and the military-industrial complex. More importantly, after Sweden's accession, NATO will be able to block the Russian enclave in the Baltic - the Kaliningrad region. It should be reminded that the main part of Russia's communication with Kaliningrad by land has already been restricted since last year, primarily by Lithuania.

Only the sea and the airspace above it remain, but the exit from the Gulf of Finland is shot through even by artillery from the Finnish and Estonian coasts, which locks Russian ports in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area. Now, with Sweden's accession, Aljaes can block the sea passage (and even the passage) from Kaliningrad to St. Petersburg, because the Swedish island of Gotland lies exactly in the middle of the Baltic Sea on this route.

Moreover, it is about to become an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" of NATO forces - moving closer to the bloc, Stockholm started to restore its military presence there in 2015. In other words, NATO can start strangling Kaliningrad without much effort, for example, by inspecting Russian ships. This is obvious to the Kremlin, and in the absence of other solutions at the moment, it is rushing to move nuclear weapons to the Kaliningrad region - they may not be allowed to be brought in later.

To summarise. The NATO summit showed the Alliance's ability and willingness to raise the degree of confrontation with Russia. In addition, the Kremlin clearly lacks the means of counteraction, and Russian politicians have recently had the same answer to the seven woes, and that answer is unclear. Not guaranteeing Russia victory, but guaranteeing a sea of blood.

Ukraine's position is also unenviable. Already on his way to the Lithuanian capital, Zelenskyy was in despair at the draft final declaration of the summit: "It seems that there is no readiness either to invite Ukraine to NATO or to make it a member of the Alliance. Consequently, there remains the possibility of bargaining Ukraine's membership in NATO - in negotiations with Russia."

Zelenskyy is somewhat confused about the details, but he is right in the main. In modern imperialist politics, the ranting about "human rights" or "traditional values", "democracy" or "Russian peace" hides the same essence - the hard cynical interests of the superpowers.

And the expendable material and a bargaining chip in the bargaining between these superpowers are the smaller states that trusted them and compromised at least part of their foreign policy (and even internal political) autonomy. Under such conditions, independence and sovereignty have to be defended not only against enemies but also against self-appointed benefactors and even fellow members of the "democratic" camp.