By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced Russia will end its self-imposed moratorium on deploying intermediate- and short-range nuclear missiles, citing the US’s global deployment of similar weapons. This decision follows a recent Russian missile test and is presented as a retaliatory measure to US and UK arms supplies to Ukraine. The US plans to deploy long-range missiles in Germany in 2026, a move defended by Germany but criticized by Russia as a significant threat. This escalation reverses decades of arms control agreements, raising concerns about a new arms race and global instability.
Read the original article here
Russia’s announcement that it will scrap its self-imposed moratorium on intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) is framed as a response to expanding US military deployments. However, a closer look reveals a more nuanced situation, one that challenges the narrative of Western escalation.
Russia’s claim of Western provocation is undercut by the fact that it has already been deploying medium and long-range supersonic and hypersonic ballistic missiles, including the Khinzal, against Ukraine for some time. The deployment of long-range nuclear weapons in Belarus also predates the recent provision of shorter-range missiles to Ukraine by the US. This suggests that the moratorium’s abandonment might be less about reacting to recent events and more about a calculated strategic move.
The timing of the moratorium’s announcement, seemingly designed to create alarm, further fuels skepticism. The suggestion that this is merely a tool to generate fear, rather than a genuine shift in military strategy, seems credible given the context. The effectiveness of the Russian military hardware is also questionable, with past failures and reliance on older technology casting doubt on their actual capabilities.
The portrayal of Russia as a perpetual victim is a recurring theme. This consistent positioning as an innocent party, despite actions that contradict this narrative, highlights a pattern of deceptive tactics. This behavior is not unique to Russia, and is a common tactic employed by authoritarian regimes to deflect criticism and maintain power.
The notion that Western restraint has enabled Russia’s actions is a compelling argument. The careful consideration given to avoid over-escalation with Russia may have inadvertently allowed them to act with impunity. This delicate balancing act, aimed at preventing wider conflict, is a complex and risky undertaking.
The broader geopolitical context, including previous arms control treaties, adds layers to the situation. The US withdrawal from the INF treaty in 2019, while citing Russia’s non-compliance, complicates the narrative of sole Russian aggression. Russia’s violation of past treaties, along with its continued development of prohibited weaponry even during periods of supposed compliance, further underscores the lack of good faith.
However, focusing solely on blame deflects from the critical issue: the escalating tensions and the increasing likelihood of wider conflict. The concern isn’t just about who is responsible, but about the very real danger of a potential global conflict, fueled by mutual accusations and an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment.
The current situation is a stark reminder of the risks associated with arms races and the difficulties of maintaining global peace in a world with powerful, assertive nations. It’s easy to view this as yet another instance of Russia’s aggressive behavior, but it’s vital to acknowledge the broader context and the difficult decisions faced by all parties involved. The consequences of miscalculation are devastatingly high.
The long game, as Russia appears to be playing, involves a calculated gamble that hinges on exhausting Ukraine’s resources and potentially influencing political dynamics in the West. This prolonged conflict has far-reaching implications, not only for the directly involved parties but for global stability.
The ongoing conflict serves as a reminder that even the strongest military powers are not immune to strategic miscalculations and the unpredictable consequences of conflict. The reality is far more complex than simple narratives of victimhood or unchecked aggression allow, leaving the world facing a potentially catastrophic future.