According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the alliance is rethinking how it would defend its eastern flank. For decades, the plan relied mostly on barriers and checkpoints to slow an invading force. After nearly five years of war in Ukraine, NATO strategists have concluded that slowing troops down is not enough.
The new approach is called denial. If Russian forces crossed the border, NATO would aim to destroy not only the invading units but also what keeps them going: military bases, supply depots and industrial sites on Russian soil.
NATO's top commander in Europe, US General Alexus Grynkewich, set out this "theory of victory" in Warsaw last month. Allies would first stop the initial attack, then take away Russia's ability to keep fighting. "We will dismantle the warfighting system being used against us," he said. Earlier reporting on the plan said long-range missiles would target Russian command posts and air defences in Kaliningrad, near St Petersburg and in Belarus.
Polish Major General Ireneusz Nowak said that in a conflict, the alliance would want to strike Russia's defence industry, and that precision strikes deep in the rear should be treated as a deterrent. His message to Moscow was simple: don't do anything foolish.
To back this up, the United States is modernising and restocking Tomahawk cruise missiles and ATACMS. European allies are building up Storm Shadow, SCALP and Taurus stocks, and at least 48 projects for cheaper cruise missiles have been announced across Europe.
The report says the plan does not involve nuclear weapons. NATO has not publicly released it as an operational plan, and the alliance describes its posture as defensive. Putin has said Russia has no plans to attack any European country, while Moscow has warned it could use nuclear weapons if NATO tried to cut off Kaliningrad.
Does the threat of deep strikes make war less likely, or does it raise the stakes? Share your view below.
#NATO #Russia #Geopolitics #EasternFlank
Post a Comment