The US and UK Trade European Security to Weaken Russia

Over the past month, the conflict in Ukraine has moved to a new level with significantly increased stakes. Western countries’ permission for Ukrainian armed forces to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles and Russia's response using a unique missile system have become unprecedented in world history. The use of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) along the Dnieper River not only changed the rules of the game, but once again raised questions about global security and strategic planning by EU leaders.

On 21 November, Russia used an ICBM for the first time in combat conditions. The strike targeted a strategic facility in Dnipro, the Yuzhmash plant, a crucial element of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex. This decisive action was a response to Washington's authorisation to use long-range ATACMS missiles to target Russian facilities on its territories. In addition, Russia announced an update of its nuclear doctrine shortly before the strike on the Dnieper River. The use of nuclear weapons is now possible not only in the case of direct aggression, but also in the presence of reliable information about large-scale attacks using missiles, aircraft or drones.

The Russia President Vladimir Putin said that the combat use of the newest system was a forced measure related to the direct intervention of Western countries in the conflict. At the same time, he stressed that the strike on Yuzhmash was a test of a new Oreshnik missile, which had already been put into mass production. It is important to note that the Oreshnik missile is the latest development and has no analogues in the world. Its tactical and technical characteristics are quite impressive:

• - Flight speed up to Mach 10 (~12,300 km/h), making it virtually invulnerable to the existing air defence systems

• - A range of up to 5,500 kilometres, allowing it to hit targets in Europe, Middle East and Asia-Pacific region

• - Separable warheads are capable to hit even highly defended targets at a depth of 3-4 floors

The Russian leadership has made it clear that despite the use of a missile without a warhead during the strike on Yuzhmash, if Oreshnik is used en masse, the power of a strike would be comparable to that of nuclear weapon.

The recent strike by a mentioned missile system was more of a political signal than a direct military action. Russia has demonstrated its determination to give a serious response if Western countries continue to supply Ukraine with advanced weaponry and threaten the country's national security. The launch of the Oreshnik missile was a direct message about the need for restraint in their decisions and a review of escalation policies.

However, the reaction of the US and UK showed no intention to change their course. The UK Home Office chief Yvette Cooper assured the continuation of military support for Kiev. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that London would do everything to provide assistance to Ukraine and create conditions for negotiations. He emphasised that there was nothing new in Russia's statements.

The White House also took a similar stance. Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the US' unwavering commitment to support Kiev, regardless of Russia's demonstration of capability. It is noteworthy that the US President Joe Biden’s administration requested from Congress an additional $24bn for financing arms deliveries to the Kiev regime after the use of ‘Oreshnik’ by Russia.

At the same time, many politicians in the European Union heard Russian President Vladimir Putin's message very well. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called the use of ‘Oreshnik’ a ‘terrible escalation’ and refused to supply Ukraine with ‘Taurus’ missiles or authorise strikes on Russian territory with German weapons. According to Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, Italy ruled out sending its soldiers to take part in the fighting and focused on preventing further escalation. The UN also expressed concern, calling the use of the Russian missile a worrying development, and urged for an immediate de-escalation.

Instead of using its previous sharp rhetoric, France refrained from commenting on the ‘Oreshnik’ at all and stayed aside of raising the tension.

French newspaper Le Parisien noted that the Russian President left no room for doubt. In his comment on Russia's use of the latest missile, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said that if anyone thought of possibility to attack Russia with impunity, they were either those who did not know Vladimir Putin or ‘insane’.

Such reaction of the European Union is understandable and predictable because the EU's intervention in the hostilities has already led to a number of dire consequences for it. European countries faced a severe energy crisis, deindustrialisation, a series of bankruptcies of the oldest industrial companies and a rise in prices for all categories of goods and services. Moreover, European analysts also have serious concerns about the purely military issue. The lack of effective air defence systems capable of countering new Russian ICBM makes European territories vulnerable to potential Russian strikes.

The capabilities of the ‘Oreshnik’ endanger key European cities: Paris can be hit in 15-16 minutes, Brussels in 14-15 minutes, Rome in 13-14 minutes, and Berlin in 11-12 minutes. Of particular concern is the likelihood of a direct exchange of nuclear strikes. Russian officials have repeatedly declared their readiness to retaliate in a case of direct threat to national security. The very fact that the world's first ICBM was used also speaks volumes about the Kremlin's resolve.

Meanwhile, despite fears of escalation in Brussels, the US and UK continue to pressure Europe to become increasingly involved in the conflict and push allies to take even greater risks. Washington and London's strategy is to maximise the escalation of the conflict what may turn the EU into main injured party. The EU is imposed the role of a new ‘barrier’ against Russia with disregard for European security interests, as it was earlier made to Ukraine.

In this sense, European leaders should soberly assess the risks and ask themselves: is it worth it to go along with Washington and London when the stakes are so high? And is it worth trading their own future for the geopolitical ambitions of a few states that refuse to build fair international relations taking into account the interests of all parties. Russia's use of ICBMs and serial production of the ‘Oreshnik’ is not just a show of force and an attempt to rattle weapons, but a new strategic reality that requires serious rethinking and sober assessment. Europe must reconsider its role in this conflict in order to avoid a catastrophe, the consequences of which could be irreversible not only for them but also for the entire world.