Missiles in Poland, because the accident should also worry. “Tragic fatality, the stalemate pushes towards less controllable weapons”

A Ukrainian rocket, an “unfortunate” accident, then. So the same Polish authorities closed the sudden leak on which the destinies of the world began to dance on Tuesday afternoon, opened by the remains of a missile that fell in Poland, breaking two lives. Again this morning Fly spoke of provocation from Kiev, Ukraine points the finger at Moscow. As the hours go by, the most probable and reassuring truth emerges, but that billiard split against the sky of a border agricultural area, which never happened before, “is a very bad sign”, he says Tiziano Ciocchettiresponsible Military world of Online Defense.

Let’s start with the missile, who fired it?
The idea I got is this. The Russians have begun massive bombing of Ukrainian energy centers. During these bombings not only rockets are used but subsonic Kh101 missiles which are easily intercepted by a system such as the S300. One of these systems, hitting a missile, probably ended up in Polish territory.

Is it imprudent of Moscow to launch missiles so close to the border?
We are talking about missile systems with very high ranges, both offensive and defensive. I mentioned the Kh101 which has a range of 2500 kilometers, and the S300 which has an engagement capacity of 400 kilometers. They are such sophisticated and powerful systems that distances are relative, it takes them a moment to reach the border area, even when it is 500 kilometers away. We’re talking about missiles that travel even at 500 kilometers per hour (they make eight kilometers in sixty seconds, ed).

For hours, the “behind the logic” of intentional provocation prevailed on both sides. Does it have basics?
Surely Kiev has every interest in keeping the level of tension always high. That he can implement deliberate actions that push the Alliance to an ever more massive intervention in the conflict is plausible, but it doesn’t seem like one of them. There have been others in the past, but the Alliance knows full well that it cannot do more than that. The Russians have no interest in bombing Poland, so much so that they have always been very careful not to strike near the border.

Could that have been a mistake?
They know that attacks in the NATO area would trigger very serious consequences. And they don’t dare, even knowing perfectly well that many of the supplies for the Ukrainians come right from the Polish border. Hitting them would also be in strategic interest for them to hit supply lines, but they didn’t. Also for these reasons, I immediately felt like excluding intentionality in favor of randomness. Unfortunately two people died, but the collateral damage was minimal. In my opinion, this is the tactical situation on the ground.

What do you think of the reactions, the emergency meeting for the common line?
As regards the Polish protest or the request to the secretary of the Atlantic Alliance Stoltenberg to activate the article 4 to “verify the situation” that is fine: the art. 5 is unthinkable because already at the time of the Cold War it did not guarantee any security to the members of the Alliance because it left to the individual nations any type of decision to implement if one of the states was attacked. It has no reason to exist.

This episode has political as well as military significance, which one?
I would say more political, precisely because I exclude intentionality. Ukraine is surrounded by NATO countries, as is Russia, apart from Ukraine. It is obvious that if military activities are to be carried out in the vicinity of the borders, an accidental trespassing may occur, it is an objective fact. But the point is always the same, the stalemate of the negotiations.

How long can it last?
Let’s face it, the British are fueling the war to a lesser extent and the Americans, we continental Europeans cannot do more than what we have done. Not long ago the German Armed Forces denounced the fact that they no longer had armaments to send. If they don’t have them, let alone us. As far as the general conduct of operations is concerned, it is obvious that the more time passes, the more authoritative voices begin to emerge also in the military sphere, therefore in the Pentagon, who say “perhaps it would be appropriate to interrupt this type of aid and enter into serious negotiations”.

Why doesn’t it happen?
No nation has presented a series of points and plans to bring the two sides to a real negotiating table, credible enough to suspend the use of arms. What Zelensky has just presented is obviously unacceptable for Moscow, for this there must be a mediator Super partes that is not on the horizon.

Is Biden’s non-defeat a guarantee of continuity of US aid?
American strategy doesn’t suddenly change based on the results of the elections, that happens in small countries, like ours, without strategies. The great powers, especially the only “superpower”, is impervious to these sudden changes which, moreover, have not occurred, because the Senate, albeit by a small margin, is controlled by the Democrats. The Americans are continuing with the supplies and the indirect military assistance they have given up to now, but we will also have to see the effects, the changes on the ground: if the Russians begin to engage more and more in a large-scale war, using more massive bombing from of view of the strike missile rather than artillery, surely the Americans will modify theirs as well.

The liberation of occupied areas is being hailed as a victory
The fact that the Russians are withdrawing from Kherson does not necessarily mean they are losing. It is certainly a sign of difficulty in Putin’s forces, my sources report that they are also recalling personnel with no military experience, they have even enlisted an art critic. It may be indicative of the fact that they are not in a good position, but from here to say that they are not losing. Especially since the goal is the occupation of Donbass which the Russians will not give up, and the Ukrainians will not drive them out unless NATO enters the game directly. But NATO means the Americans, the British.

Can another “accident” change things?
In my opinion, no, in the sense that the Americans’ goal is not to wage open war on the Russians. They are testing certain “assets” to verify the feasibility, in the medium-term future, of a global competition with the Chinese, because they are the enemy. The real confrontation will be in the Pacific in a few years between Anglo-American forces (including New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians with their allies India, Japan and South Korea) against China. To ensure world hegemony, which is not yet threatened but in the near future could be, but by China. Russia currently poses no threat to American global hegemony. You didn’t represent it when there was the USSR, let alone now.

So why so much effort on this eastern front?
For the first time in 70 years since the Korean War, Americans are confronting a high-profile state actor, albeit indirectly. They have no intention of getting directly involved in the conflict. These underlying motivations, of a strategic and long-term nature, combine with the limitations of Zelensky’s position: beyond what he receives, he can ask but cannot have. There is no next step, the next step are the soldiers in the field, who already exist as specialists, several thousand soldiers. The USA certainly cannot give them Ohio-class submarines.

Leave a Comment