We already discussed the nuclear triad which is just an ominous way of saying that there are three flavors of nuclear warhead delivery: big ballistic missiles, nuclear armed submarines and nuclear armed bombers. All will spoil your lifetime.
NATO expansion: unless you have been lost in the mountains for the last month, you’ve heard this term Either it’s a horrible evil plot by the nefarious West to reduce Russia’s border security or it’s an innocuous club that just accepted a few new members. Neither is really true.
At a later date I’ll talk at length about why no rational nation-state leaves a critically important issue up to a thirty year old handshake deal and some indirect references in documents that aren’t directly related or binding. For now suffice it that this is Exhibit A for NATO expansion being a wedge issue and not a critical issue for Russia. As a corollary, sane people don’t watch their house catch fire and wait twenty years to call the fire department – NATO expansion has been going on since the Nineteen Nineties.
The point we’re after now is why NATO expansion doesn’t eminently threaten Russian security – and no, this isn’t at all like the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the 1960’s we were busily trying to put a man on the moon – all that rocket development was just a side effect, really (for the sarcasm impaired, yes, that’s sarcasm). Hitting a target 8000 miles away wasn’t as sure a thing as both governments wanted everyone to believe. Oh, we’d hit something – just not necessarily what we were aiming for. Ditto for Russia.
But a target ninety miles away? Sure, no problem. This was why Russia was even more keen on buffer zones than it normally was (buffer zones were an Ivan the Great invention). Better to let Poland get hit than Moscow. And this was why the US went ballistic (pun ever so much intended) over the placement of missiles in Cuba.
That was nearly sixty years ago. Once we could reliably hit the moon without killing anyone, we could reliably hit Moscow and kill everyone. Same was true for Russia – Washington wasn’t an iffy target anymore. No further need to annoy the Americans by trying to get nukes into the Americas – Russia could hit the US of A from the comfort of home.
There are ICBMs in the US, England and France – and that’s the short list. Literally all are capable of hitting Russia and Russia is incapable of shooting them all down. This annoyingly works both ways, of course.
In WWII Berlin and Moscow took turns bombing each other just to prove they could – which was just barely true. There were only a handful of such missions because getting to the opposing capital was easy enough – getting home again, not so much. Nowadays Berlin to Moscow is a nonstop flight. Bombers might be the slowest leg of the triad but they have more than enough range from pre-1990 sites to reach Russia along with their fighter escort, fully refueled in flight along the way. Fighter jets and bombers are relative gas hogs – but they get where they are going and they make danged sure you regret it.
But before the ICBMs and the bombers have their way, SLBMs will already be slamming into Moscow. Worse, it is possible (never gonna really happen because it’s also really, really stupid and unnecessary) for an American submarine to launch a SLBM from Saint Petersburg, Russia aimed at Moscow. Militarily beyond the pale stupid but we have the technology – and while the port might be idiotic, the Baltic Sea is perfectly fair game. Moscow hasn’t been secure from nuclear attack in fifty years.
But conventional attack, you say? Once launched, how do you tell missiles apart? Never mind the ICBMs – how do you know that bomber group that just flew over Belarus is armed conventionally? Answer is, you don’t. The distance is no obstacle for the US Air Force and as the Russians are busily proving in Ukraine, without air superiority, ground forces get hurt REALLY, REALLY bad. No modern military comes in with tanks first – it’s always air attacks and artillery. What protects Russia is the same thing that protects the US – launching ANY attack at a nuclear peer is suicidally stupid. NATO, because of its members, is itself effectively a nuclear power.
Buffer zones are soo Twentieth Century. Oh sure, it’s nice to only have friendly neighbors – or it would be if Russia ever had any – but the nuclear fence makes for very good, and very wary, neighbors.
And there’s one more elephant in the room – Estonia and Latvia are members of NATO. Neither is a nuclear power but you may remember from high school geography that both share a border with Russia.
How, exactly, does controlling Ukraine protect Russia from the big bad NATO? It doesn’t. Minor inconvenience to overfly if we’re ever in a hot war with Russia – and frankly, the likelihood of a conventional direct military conflict is miniscule so the SLBMs will have long since hit before bombers get off the ground good.
Russia is no more secure – or insecure – than any other nuclear power. It’s delusions are it’s own problem. But it’s lies we don’t need to care about.
