Geopolitics Review - 9th December 2024
An Escalating Europe
Contents
Introduction
The US Allows Ukraine To Use Missiles Targeting Russia
Russia Uses “Brand New” Missile
The Geopolitical Theatre vs The US Domestic Strategies
Concluding Remarks
Other News In Geopolitics This Week
Bitesize Edition
In November, the United States changed its stance on missile launches against Russia. They approved of the Ukrainians using ATACMS, with a range of around 300km. The Ukrainians utilized this change with an attack on a military facility in the Russian region of Bryansk.
In response to this, the Russians unleashed what was marketed as a “brand new” missile in Dnipro. This missile is named “Oreshnik”, traveling at Mach 10, and possessing a range of 5000km. This puts Europe in the range of Oreshnik, and even parts of the United States.
With this being the latest dramatic change in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I decided to delve into the motivations behind these decisions. Is this a sharp escalation in the conflict, or is it yet again a wonderful batch of geopolitical theatre? Finally, who benefits from these events?
Introduction
The United States passed approval for Ukraine to use ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) on Russia in the last few weeks, in response to North Korean troops being utilized in the Kursk region. On November 19th, the Ukrainians utilizing their newfound power, launched six missiles at a military facility in Bryansk. Reports differed as to how many missiles hit, but one certainly hit as the facility was damaged.
In response to the United States and Ukraine, Russia unleashed what was marketed as the new “Oreshnik” missile in Dnipro, Ukraine.
As is usually the case, there is much more to discuss than what we hear on the surface here. Let’s dive in.
The U.S. Allow Ukraine To Use Missiles Targeting Russia
The first question is why has the U.S. openly allowed this now?
There are two theories for how the United States is hoping to benefit from these moves. Firstly, they hope it gives Ukraine the potential to gain more ground, and hence the Ukrainians will be in a more beneficial negotiating position when Trump enters the fray in January. With Trump stating previously that he will provide Ukraine less support, leaving it to a fiscally strained Europe to handle its and Ukraine’s security in a more active role, the Democrats could be attempting one final “hurrah” of military and financial support to Ukraine.
An alternative, more cynical explanation is that this leads to escalation, which makes Trump’s job harder come January when he has promised to end the war in “24 hours”. This is the option that domestically, benefits the Democrats by hindering Trump and the early goals of his Presidency.
In exploring which of these scenarios is more valid, it comes down to what the current Biden administration prioritizes: Their own political future or the future of Ukraine? For most of us around the world, we want an end to this fighting in Ukraine that elites around the world have orchestrated. But for the United States, it has and always will be, America First. This won’t change with the incoming Trump administration, but while the Democrats see preserving the current world order with heavy U.S. involvement as a key priority, Trump believes in focusing inward and boosting US power by focusing less on events outside the borders of the United States.
Now that we’ve explored some potential reasoning behind the United States’ change of stance, let’s explore the use of the Oreshnik Missile by the Russians.
Russia Uses “Brand New” Missile. Or Is It?
Firstly, what is the hype behind this missile? Is it unfounded?
In what has received very little media coverage, the missile was part of a project that had been shelved in 2018. This missile was known as the RS-26 Rubezh. It has been altered to include 36 small warheads since the previous version of the RS-26 Rubezh was incredibly inaccurate.
On the flip side, this was the first time this missile had ever been used. It reached speeds of Mach 10 and didn’t include any explosive aspect. It causes damage solely through the movement of the missile. Is this technological superiority, or has Russia played an important card it would have otherwise hoped not to play? With the RS-26 Rubezh project benched years ago, it was likely welcomed as a repurposed missile. It could be thought that the use of a new missile isn’t particularly escalatory. However, the missile has a range of above 5000km. This 800km launch on Dnipro was much less than this, but the capabilities of this missile at maximum range have widened the physical and metaphorical range that this war in Ukraine is having on the rest of the world.
Secondly, why did Russia warn the United States before using it in Dnipro? With this missile being utilized for the first time, the Russians didn’t want NATO to believe a nuclear weapon had been launched. This ultimately makes sense, since ending the world via mutually assured destruction when launching an intermediate-range ballistic missile truly benefits nobody. It’s worth noting that this wasn’t an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), but an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM).
And so, with this latest geopolitical event, we seem to be slipping rapidly in escalation, and not just in Ukraine. Russian troops are advancing quickly on the front lines, protests are erupting in Georgia over a suspension to pursue joining the EU until at least 2028, and in Romania, elections have been annulled over claims of Russian interference on TikTok. All this is occurring in the background as rebels from Idlib in Syria have launched a coup attempt on Assad’s Syria, taking Aleppo and now focusing on Homs. The attempt has seen Assad flee from Syria to Moscow, seemingly leaving the future of the state once again up in the air.
Why are we escalating in these many situations around the world? Is it geopolitical theatre, or are U.S. domestic political issues being exported around the world?
The Geopolitical Theatre vs The US Domestic Strategies
The United States and Russians warning each other beforehand has some indication that this is yet again, another wonderful batch of political theatre, seeking to strike fear into the hearts of people around the world. If not, then it does ensure that Russia and the United States are still seeking to avoid escalation with each other directly.
Regardless of the reasoning, we then come to the question of why bother with geopolitical theatre at all. Who benefits, and why? Do both benefit or has one side been witness to a geopolitical masterclass by the other?
The United States rules-based world order relies on limiting the rise of a multipolar world order. Any moves to limit the capability of this occurring would involve isolating Russia. I’ve questioned in the past, if a ruling nation in the current world order was challenged by a rising system, what would they do to defend this system? I’d argue they wouldn’t decline quietly. This is how hot wars were fought for centuries. Territorial gains meant greater power, greater trade, more land to grow food, more people, and hence a bigger army. Today, war is fought differently, but the principle of defending what you have remains. Psychologically, even as individuals, we all like to feel like we’re moving forward and advancing. The same is true of countries. Ray Dalio has a lot to say about this, with his Big Cycle model implying nations have their time in the sun, and then by various metrics begin to decline. This occurs over a long time, and by the model, an end to the U.S. system may not come in many of our lifetimes. However, the big question is whether the decline of nations is inevitable, and thus if the U.S.-led world will end one day in the future. If so, the U.S. will likely defend what it has. Where this takes us is seemingly down this road towards greater global tension. All this without mentioning the true rising power of the Chinese!
Now for Russia, how do they benefit from a wonderful batch of geopolitical theatre? Do they look strong by painting this missile as a brand-new weapon? They have since threatened to use it on Kyiv, which grabbed global headlines.
As has always been the case, Russia has a stronger army than Ukraine. Even with all the Western aid to Ukraine, it has remained Russia’s war to lose. The North Koreans have joined the conflict in the Kursk region of Russia, where Ukraine holds a portion of its territory. This should give Russia more resources to focus on the front lines, and this strategy appears to be working.
In Ukraine, Russia is making modest gains. The mainstream media is painting it as a story of Russian domination, yet as we can see here, to monitor Russia’s gains, we have to zoom into the map for it to even be visible.
If Russia eventually controls all the territory in the four Oblasts it desires (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson), will they push further, or hold the ground and hope for a deal while in a strong position? It would put them in a stronger negotiating position. If Trump’s deal is to be suspected of giving away some Ukrainian territory, all the Russians may have to do is hold on until January. How to provide Ukraine with some level of security in this scenario will be one of the biggest issues the incoming Trump administration will face.
In some ways, Russia will be incentivized to end this conflict. Their war economy pivot has seen the Russian economy remain strong, even growing to the fourth-largest world economy. However, recent news about the weakness of the ruble will bring the war closer to home for everyday Russians. This could spout instability, and Russia would prefer to end sooner rather than later. An end to the conflict will allow more resources to navigate economic instability.
In focusing on an end to the conflict, it’s clear it won’t come under the current Biden administration. Hence, let’s focus on Russia, Ukraine, and the Trump-led US. What does each want from a potential negotiation, and are there still any large deviations between these three parties in what they envision as the future of this conflict? This is what I’ll explore next week.
Concluding Remarks
The conflict in Ukraine continues to be one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the mainstream media. In January, we’ll see if this conflict will enter a new chapter, continue as it is today, or if Trump’s promise of peace will be achieved.
There is much I want to discuss this week, with the protests in Georgia, the election issues in Romania, and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. If I find the time I will discuss all this on Thursday. If not, I’ll release another piece on energy reliability. Still, I will get around to discussing all of these issues eventually.
Other News In Geopolitics This Week
Russian Ship Fires Warning Shots At German Helicopter Over Baltic Sea
South Sudanese VP Questions Leadership of Sudan Military Government
Telecom Cable Between Finland and Sweden Damaged In Two Places
Trump Warns Hamas of Hell To Pay If Hostages Not Released Before Inauguration
Thanks for reading! I’d greatly appreciate it if you were to like or share this post with others! If you want more then subscribe on Substack for these posts directly to your email inbox. I research history, geopolitics, and financial markets to understand the world and the people around us. If any of my work helps you be more prepared and ease your mind, that’s great. If you like what you read please share with others.
Key Links
The Geopolitics Explained Podcast
If you want to see daily updates and discover other newsletters that suit you, download the Substack App.
You can become a paid subscriber to support my work. There are paid posts every Thursday and long-form monthly articles in my global questions series exclusively for paid subscribers. The Geopolitics Database is also accessible. Read Geopolitics Explained for 20p per day or start a free trial below to find out if my work is for you! I appreciate your support!
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx28dzvxjyjo.amp
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/11/19/us-allowing-ukraine-to-use-atacms-missiles-in-russia-is-unlikely-to-change-balance-of-power_6733314_4.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/biden-ukraine-us-weapons-russia-restriction/
It is never just theatre when there are lives on the front lines....