Volodymyr Fesenko: The US Warned The Kremlin And Retaliates Now

Washington decided to show strength.

For the first time, the Armed Forces of Ukraine attacked a military facility in the Russian Federation with ATACMS missiles. The arsenal of the Russian Ministry of Defence in the Bryansk region was hit.

How did Moscow react to the US decision to allow ATACMS missile strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation? Will there be real steps on the part of the Kremlin?

Charter97.org spoke about this with the famous Ukrainian political scientist Volodymyr Fesenko, the head of the Penta Center for Applied Political Studies:

— We must understand that this permission itself is a response to Russia's aggressive actions and the escalation of hostilities on its part.

This refers to the participation of the North Korean military in hostilities against Ukraine and massive missile strikes on the energy system. This is the answer.

Most likely, the United States had previously warned the Kremlin to refrain from such actions, but since Moscow crossed certain "red lines", the United States and European partners took a reciprocal step.

I think that this was not a surprise for Moscow. Apparently, the Kremlin decided to test the US "weakness" in the conditions of the transition period. One president is leaving, the other has not yet come to power. But the US had to show strength that it would not just abandon Putin's actions. This is especially true for the participation of the North Korean military in hostilities.

Now there are threats from the Russian Federation, but without any specification. Most likely, if the use of American, as well as British and French missiles for strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation is limited, pointwise, then Moscow's reaction will be limited.

Nevertheless, there is already a nervous, aggressive reaction. These are ballistic missile strikes on civilians in Ukraine: Sumy, Odesa, Hlukhov. Dozens of dead. Here's your first reaction.

Putin will very unlikely to attack NATO countries. This is the risk of direct war. They can threaten, but it is too risky for Russia to go to direct war with NATO. The main risk is nuclear war.

Not only in Washington, but also in Moscow (even more) they are afraid of a war between Russia and NATO. I emphasize that in words the Russians threaten, but in reality they are afraid. Therefore, the reaction will be indirect, asymmetrical: sabotage, the resumption of nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya, the supply of weapons to various anti-American groups. For example, the Houthis, who shell not only peaceful ships, but also a flotilla of Western and American ships in the Red Sea.

There's a catch. If Russian anti-ship missiles attack American ships, and if, God forbid, American sailors are killed, then, I am sure that Trump may react very nervously to this.

— How does the Trump team perceive this decision?

— Now the Trump team criticizes Biden's decision, playing on contrasts. They are now putting forward peace negotiations as the main priority, this is the expected reaction.

But if as a result of such a reaction of Russia there are direct negative consequences for the United States, then, let's say, Trump can react quite harshly to this. Therefore, Russia, I think, will act moderately and, rather, asymmetrically.

Many observers expect the war to escalate. This is the most frequent forecast. But I will say this: the escalation on the part of Russia has already occurred. It is possible that this process will continue, but it is already obvious that any actions of escalation on the part of Russia will be answered by Ukraine and the West.

The logic of the future negotiation process should also be taken into account. Now, most likely, both sides (Russia and Ukraine) are raising the stakes.

But after a while, when some kind of negotiation process begins, I think that it will still determine the further logic of the war. Now this desire to raise the stakes, in particular — for Ukraine, if it is possible to deliver quite effective strikes on the territory of Russia with the help of Western missiles, this will somewhat strengthen Ukrainian negotiating positions.

— The future US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that he would seek "peace through strength". Allowing ATACMS missile strikes — to what extent is this part of such a concept?

— It is important to understand that the concept of "peace through strength" is a classic doctrine of the Republicans. Trump spoke about this back in 2016. For Republicans, in particular, the classic wing, to which Marco Rubio belongs, this is a popular concept.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also constantly speaks and calls on Trump to adhere to his own concept of "peace through strength".

Ukraine supports this position: first it is necessary to force Russia to end the war, and then it is necessary to start peace negotiations. Not the other way.

The extent to which the provision of Western long-range missiles to Ukraine for attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation fits into this concept depends on the circumstances. Now the political situation for the Trump team is such that they are more likely to criticize this decision by Joe Biden. They must show that they will act differently, but, as practice shows, the parties will act based on the circumstances. I note that when Trump came to power in 2016, he reversed some of Barack Obama's decisions, but not all of them.

On long-range missiles, I think the Trump administration will act depending on the military situation, on how negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will go. They may impose a moratorium on the use of these missiles for a while (at the beginning of negotiations), but if the Kremlin rejects the compromise proposals from the Trump administration, the Americans can take retaliatory measures: and increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine (including missiles to help), and can give permission for the use of these missiles for strikes on the territory of Russia.

This will be a way to put pressure on the Russian Federation. If it refuses to agree to a ceasefire and some compromise options that the Trump administration will offer.

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail [email protected]