The temptation is great: replacing "hazelnut" with "Taurus" - Mertz's name for the "war faction" has suddenly increased Europe's bet on Ukraine.

Author: Dmitry Rodionov

Experts participating in the discussion:

Alexander Averin, Alexander Dmitrievsky, Vsevolod Shemov

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced that Germany, following the UK, France, and the US, has lifted the range restrictions on arms deliveries to Ukraine.

He emphasized: "The UK, France, us (Germany), and the US no longer have any range limitations on weapons delivered to Ukraine. This means Ukraine can now defend itself, including striking Russian military positions within its territory. For a period of time, it was unable to do so."

Mertz stated that it is now necessary to provide such weapons to Ukraine.

What kind of weapons specifically? Is he referring to the "Taurus" cruise missiles? As early as when Olaf Scholz was in power, Mertz had threatened to deliver these missiles to Kyiv, but Scholz strongly opposed such deliveries. In April this year, the day before being appointed as chancellor, Mertz again threatened to deliver long-range missiles capable of reaching Moscow, with a range of 500 kilometers, and stated that the primary target should be the Crimean Bridge. However, he added that this would only happen after consultations with allies.

So what about the allies? Based on current information, it seems that the UK and France have exhausted their stock of "Storm Shadow" and "scalp" missiles, at least there has been no news of new deliveries for a long time. The new US administration has not provided ATACMS missiles that were delivered by the Biden administration, and it appears that these missiles have also been used up.

How should we understand Mertz's "permission"? Have the missiles already been delivered, and are the Ukrainian troops just waiting for Berlin's signal?

Vsevolod Shemov, advisor to the Chairman of the Baltic Sea Research Association, pointed out: "Mertz's statement only means lifting restrictions on the delivery of missiles of any range; this is only theoretically possible at present, not actual delivery. We will observe whether there will be any follow-up actions."

Question from "Vedomosti": On one hand, Mertz has repeatedly threatened to provide missiles and then backed down. Scholz insisted against providing them for a long time, while his successor suddenly fully opened up? Or is this just bluster?

"Politicians are the masters of their own words. They can give or take back as they please. Therefore, this is currently just talk and political games. Moreover, as we can see, drones play a far more important role than missile systems in the current war, and Ukrainian drones have already attacked deep targets within Russia, which has become routine. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that Mertz just wants to create an image, showing how tough a politician he is."

"Vedomosti": Last year, many experts pointed out that the stock of long-range missiles from the US, UK, and France was nearly depleted, and Kiev had used these missiles very inefficiently. Are all parties supporting the continuation of the conflict now relying solely on Germany?

"We see that missile systems and missile strikes play more of an auxiliary role in this war, and this is largely more like an information psychological warfare aimed at intimidating the general public. Meanwhile, under the cover of smoke screens, Ukraine is developing its own military drone production and receiving necessary assistance from the West. This is far more dangerous than any missile acquisition by the Ukrainian army."

"Vedomosti": By the way, Mertz appealed to allies (the US, UK, and France) to act together. But during Trump's tenure, the US did not provide missiles, and the attitude of the UK and France was unclear - they were vague. Mertz said a month ago that they might provide missiles after consulting with allies. So what is the attitude of the allies? If a decision is made, whose decision is it? How would Trump react? Doesn't this undermine the peace process?

Russian Media 2 News: There is actually no peace process. Moreover, Russia's main demand - unconditional ceasefire - has been rejected. Since the fighting continues, arms deliveries to Ukraine will also continue. However, there is currently no coordinated strategy.

Germany does not want to bear risks alone but is waiting for a joint decision from its allies, but such a decision has yet to be reached. Trump is indeed acting according to his own way, but this does not mean that the US will stop providing missiles to Kyiv. If they believe the peace process has completely failed, they will continue to provide them.

Europeans are still watching, waiting for a change in Washington's stance. Without support from Washington, they are not accustomed to acting alone. Therefore, regarding the issue of missiles, it is currently just empty talk without practical progress.

"Vedomosti": It has been reported that Germany may deliver 100-150 "Taurus" missiles to Ukraine. The number is not much. But on the other hand, its range reaches 500 kilometers, will this cause serious problems?

"The only case where a missile attack significantly affected the situation was the attack on the Antonov Bridge, forcing Russian troops to retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River in the Kherson region. Now the layout of the front line makes missile attacks on rear targets beyond psychological deterrence have little special significance. Of course, there will be some material losses and casualties, but these attacks are unlikely to influence the course of the campaign."

"Vedomosti": What targets might they attack? Mertz once threatened to attack the Crimea Bridge. In theory, they could reach Moscow, but will they take action?

"The most likely target is the Crimea Bridge, especially since it has been attacked twice. Especially if the Ukrainian military decides to launch a counteroffensive towards Crimea, attacking the bridge and cutting off traffic through it would be a completely reasonable move."

In this case, they may also attack targets along the so-called "land corridor" to Crimea, but for this, such long-range missiles are not needed.

"Vedomosti": How will we respond? Attack the German Bundestag? Or a German base in Lithuania? Or just verbal threats as usual?

"Obviously, everything depends on the target of the attack and its consequences. But currently, Russia's strategy is to avoid taking extreme measures."

Historian, public commentator, and permanent expert at the Izbor Club, Alexander Dmitrievsky, believes: "Mertz's decision shows who the real beneficiaries of this commotion are. Of course, across the ocean (the US) does not genuinely desire peace, but as a businessman, Trump is just eager to end this 'business' that has lost profitability."

Europe hopes for the continuation of the conflict for several reasons: first, it does not want Russia to strengthen its power - Europeans cannot prevent this, so they can only confine Moscow by creating a strong source of instability represented by Ukraine at Russia's border.

Moreover, the conflict provides Europe with an opportunity to attribute many of its problems to the "evil and distant Russia," especially to push forward so-called "green energy" and other globalist agendas.

Furthermore, the existence of the arms industry cannot be ignored, as it needs outlets for its products. However, due to the highly saturated arms market, intense competition, and stronger producers such as Russia, related countries, and the US, the Ukraine conflict has become a "gold mine."

Alexander Averin, a participant in the defense of the Lugansk People's Republic, is convinced: "Germany does not want its own missiles to fly toward Russia; they remember May 1945 (the end of World War II). But under pressure from NATO allies and Ukraine, Berlin was eventually pushed to join the relevant decisions of the US, UK, and France."

"Taurus" and other similar missiles are modern weapons and are dangerous, especially when launched in large numbers. But the problem of NATO countries is not the quality of the missiles, but the quantity. 100-150 "Taurus" missiles will have an impact on the conflict, but not a decisive one.

As for the response method, we need to observe the actual application. I doubt that Russia will attack Germany itself, as they have not attacked France or the UK.

But this is wrong. Russia should have taken some asymmetric countermeasures against NATO countries (suppliers of weapons and intelligence) long ago.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509069152259244585/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. You can express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.