The Beginning of The End -- World War III is Inevitable!
The Pentagon receives for 2019 a record sum – nearly 717 billion dollars – in the context of tensions between NATO and Russia.Part of that money are for Romania. Why?
What’s happening in Romania ?
The 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command announced that the U.S. military has deployed its most advanced air and missile defense system to Romania-Deveselu.
American troops already offload a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) radar and launchers from a C-17 Globemaster III planes at Mihail Kogalniceanu (MK) Air Base in Romania.
1 of 4
“The THAAD deployed to Romania from 69th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command out of Fort Bliss, Texas,” according to a statement put out by 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command.
Also added that the deployment of the THAAD is in support of the NATO Ballistic Missile Defense mission and reinforces the strong and unremitting U.S. commitment to the defense of NATO allies.
Last month, NATO officials said that the United States will fulfill its commitment to NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence by the temporary deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Deveselu in Romania.
“The THAAD unit will be under NATO operational control and the full political control of the North Atlantic Council. It will only remain operational until the Aegis Ashore Romania site is back online. The update and deployment are expected to last several weeks,” said in news release.
Also stressed that In accordance with NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence system, the THAAD unit will be focused on potential threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
On 11 April 2019, NATO confirmed US plans to deploy of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Romania. According to NATO officials, the United States will fulfill its commitment to NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence by the temporary deployment of a THAAD system to Deveselu in Romania:
“The THAAD unit will be under NATO operational control and the full political control of the North Atlantic Council. It will only remain operational until the Aegis Ashore Romania site is back online. The update and deployment are expected to last several weeks,” said the news release. It was also stressed that according to NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence system, the THAAD unit will be focused on potential threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
“This site provides a defensive capability to deter future conflicts, and to defend ourselves and our NATO allies, should deterrence fail,” EUCOM said. The THAAD is strictly a defensive weapon system, and a key element of NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). The scheduled work is part of the United States European Phased Adaptive Approach to ballistic missile defense, which has been implemented since September 2009.
In response, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Grushko said:
“Russia is “closely following” the temporary deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to the Deveselu base in Romania.” Referring to the THAAD system deployment to Romania, he further told TASS reporters: “We are closely following this. There is a Russian saying: ‘Nothing is more permanent than a temporary fix’.”
He also raised two questions related to this move by the US: what reasons are for the THAAD deployment as it is, and what the modernization of facilities in Romania involves? Mr. Grushko further concluded:
“It is well known that the United States is currently enhancing missile interception technology and many no longer keep it secret that the US anti-missile system, including its European segment integrated into NATO, needs to be capable of intercepting missile systems operated by the Russian Federation.”
Given this recent exchange of official statements between NATO and Russia on the temporary deployment of the THAAD system to Romania, I would formulate the following personal opinions.
First, this is primarily not about Russia-Romania relations, but rather about the quite poor status of current NATO-Russia relations. The Romanian acceptance of the deployment on its territory of the US system is due to the strategic and operational commitments enshrined in Romania’s NATO membership.
By acquiescing to those moves, Bucharest is merely meeting its alliance commitments, which, according to repeated statements by both NATO and Romanian officials, are not directly targeting Russian missile systems per se. In addition, the new system was deployed on a temporary basis to maintain NATO’s operational capability during the upgrading of the Aegis Ashore Romania system.
Possible Russian military or hybrid reactions against Romania, as an individual state, would be counter-productive in the sense that it would support the perception of an imminent Russian strategic threat against Romania’s national security. Consequently, further anti-Russian rapprochement between Romania and Ukraine would become more likely, in particular in the Black Sea region.
Second, the response of the Russian deputy minister reflected the current precarious status of NATO-Russia relations and the current lack of mutual trust resulting from the ongoing geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West over their common neighborhood.
Also Read:Romania Prepares For WAR : Hundreds of US Soldiers With Tanks And Helicopters Sent to Mihail Kogălniceanu Base in Romania
Russia’s recent decision to deploy TU-22M3 bombers and Iskander missiles in Crimea might also have plaid a critical role in sustaining NATO’s security dilemma in relations with Russia. Over the last years, we have witnessed a tit-for-tat succession of mutual deployments of NATO and Russian military assets and capabilities, which made the other side feel threatened and hence bound to respond in kind with its own deployments of capabilities to counter those of the perceived adversary.
Third, the source of the current Western geopolitical confrontation with Russia is highly controversial, even among Western scholars, let aside the Russians. On the one hand, there is a large score of analysts who blame Moscow’s expansionism.
For example, Jan Bugajski is persuaded that the primary objective of Moscow’s foreign policy is to restore Russia as a major pole of power in a multipolar world. Moscow’s overarching goal would be to reverse the predominance of the United States within Europe and Eurasia.
On the other hand, professor John Mearsheimer contended that the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 could not be blamed entirely on Russia. He pointed instead at the triad of Western liberal policies in Ukraine, and more broadly in EU’s Eastern neighborhood, i.e. NATO’s enlargement, EU’s expansion, and the promotion of democracy.
Mearsheimer further explained Russia’s aggressive reaction in Crimea and Donbas from a geopolitical perspective where great powers would always be sensitive to potential threats near their home territory.
Mearsheimer suggested that the United States and its Allies should consider making Ukraine a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia instead of striving to Westernize it. The goal would be to have a sovereign and independent Ukraine that falls neither in the Russian nor in the Western camp.
Irrespective of the reasons of the current crisis in Western-Russian relations, this could only come to an end by agreeing upon a new European security model, hopefully reflecting a ‘new European security deal’.