The NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s resolution on November 27, urging the supply of medium-range missiles to Ukraine, marks a turning point in the ongoing conflict. This resolution, although not binding on NATO or its member states, reflects an increasing willingness among Western powers to escalate their support for Kyiv. However, the consequences of such a move could be catastrophic, bringing NATO closer to direct confrontation with Russia.

Medium-range missiles, as defined by the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, have ranges between 1,000 and 5,500 kilometers. Currently, the most viable option to fulfill this proposal is the US-made Tomahawk missile. These weapons have seen extensive use in conflicts across the globe and are known for their precision and destructive power.

The Tomahawk is primarily a sea-launched cruise missile, but the US military has ground-based launchers like the Mk 70 and MRC Typhon systems that can deploy it. These launch systems, based on the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System used on naval vessels, would be key to enabling Ukrainian forces to utilize such missiles.

The provision of these systems, however, would likely necessitate the deployment of US personnel to Ukraine for training, operational support, and maintenance, making it nearly impossible for the US to deny direct involvement in the conflict. Such a move would not only escalate tensions but could also cross red lines that Russia has repeatedly warned against.

The Biden administration’s rationale for considering such an escalation must be examined critically. Supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine would not decisively shift the war in Kyiv’s favor. The stockpile of these missiles is not large enough to sustain a prolonged campaign, and the logistical challenges of deploying and maintaining the required launch systems are significant.

Some analysts suggest that the resolution and the broader push to escalate support for Ukraine are part of a strategy to complicate future peace negotiations, particularly under a potential Trump administration. Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for the 2024 US presidential election, has signaled his intent to seek a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, contrasting sharply with the Biden administration’s approach. By committing to the deployment of high-stakes weaponry like medium-range missiles, the current administration could be creating conditions that make diplomacy more challenging.

If Tomahawk missiles are deemed too provocative or logistically cumbersome, Washington might consider other options, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER). These air-launched missiles have a range of about 1,000 kilometers and can be fired from aircraft like the F-16 fighter jets already supplied to Ukraine.

However, this alternative is fraught with its own set of challenges. The number of JASSM-ERs in US stockpiles is limited, and their deployment would also require significant technical support from American personnel. Moreover, the introduction of such missiles would not fundamentally change the balance of power in the conflict. Russia’s extensive air defense systems and ability to strike back with its own arsenal of long-range missiles would neutralize any tactical advantage these weapons might provide.

Supplying medium-range missiles to Ukraine would be a gamble with potentially disastrous consequences. Russia has consistently framed Western military support for Ukraine as a direct threat to its national security. The introduction of medium-range missiles, capable of striking deep into Russian territory, could provoke a response that goes far beyond the current scope of the conflict.

Russia’s possible reactions include targeting NATO logistics hubs in neighboring countries like Poland or Romania, where much of the Western military aid to Ukraine is routed. Such an escalation would bring NATO and Russia into direct conflict, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic outcomes.

Additionally, the transfer of medium-range missiles would further blur the line between Ukraine’s war effort and NATO’s involvement. While NATO has so far avoided direct military intervention, the deployment of such advanced weaponry would likely be seen by Moscow as an act of war, especially if US or NATO personnel are directly involved in their operation.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, while influential, is not the alliance’s decision-making body. Its resolutions often reflect broader political currents rather than concrete policy directives. However, the Assembly’s call for medium-range missiles aligns with NATO’s increasingly aggressive posture toward Russia. The question remains whether NATO’s leaders fully grasp the risks involved in escalating the conflict in this manner.

One possibility is that the Assembly’s resolution is intended as a symbolic gesture, aimed at signaling unwavering support for Ukraine without the immediate intention of implementing its recommendations. If so, this approach risks miscalculation. Russia could interpret the resolution as a sign of NATO’s intent, prompting preemptive actions that could spiral out of control.

The resolution raises troubling questions about the strategic calculus of NATO and its member states. Supplying medium-range missiles to Ukraine would not bring the conflict closer to resolution. Instead, it risks escalating tensions to the point of no return. The potential involvement of US personnel, the limited utility of the missiles in achieving decisive outcomes, and the likelihood of provoking a severe Russian response all point to the high stakes of this decision.

Furthermore, the timing of the resolution – as the conflict grinds on with no clear end in sight – suggests a lack of coherent strategy. Rather than pursuing avenues for de-escalation and diplomacy, NATO appears to be doubling down on a military-first approach that has shown limited success in altering the dynamics of the war.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s call to supply Ukraine with medium-range missiles is a dangerous proposition with far-reaching implications. While the resolution is not a final decision, its adoption reflects an alarming trend toward escalation that could have catastrophic consequences for global security.

The risks of such a move far outweigh its potential benefits. Medium-range missiles like the Tomahawk or JASSM-ER would not decisively shift the conflict in Ukraine’s favor but would significantly increase the likelihood of direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. At a time when diplomacy and de-escalation are urgently needed, NATO’s leaders must carefully weigh the consequences of their actions and avoid pushing the world closer to the brink of a larger war.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel