George Friedman is founder of Geopolitical Futures and author of many books on geopolitics. This latest writing isn't by Friedman, but by another writer at Geopolitical Futures, Andrew Davidson. His writing about the ICBM missiles to Ukraine is insightful and a little controversial. Have a look at it here.
"[Army Tactical Missile Systems] have a capable payload of 225 kilograms (500 pounds) of explosives or cluster munitions, they can be used against wide-area and lightly armored targets, and they have a circular error probability of 9 meters (about 30 feet).
In layman's terms, this means Ukraine now has the ability to strike much deeper into Russian territory than it previously could, with missiles that are difficult to intercept and that are extremely accurate at their maximum range."
Both sides showed no signs of backing down on their commitments to assist Ukraine militarily ever since the initial invasion on February 24, 2022. Now many people would argue that they are not doing enough to help Ukraine, but no-one should feel that they did not respond according to what NATO is supposed to represent for the European continent's security and defense. And thus, we should always keep in mind what this "historical imperative" means for all sides on the European continent, and why perspectives of security and defense are evolving with other imperatives for security and defense.
The Russian Federation has sought to undermine every effort by Ukraine to draw closer to NATO. This fact has only been escalated under Ukrainian President Zelensky's leadership, someone who clearly wants to bring the country into the US — or West — political camp. The latter inevitably means more military assistance for Ukraine; and this is a direct threat to the national security of Russia. It's simple, not complicated at all, and yet people cannot understand why Russia decided to back out of the Black Sea Grain Initiative.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative was intended for Ukraine to export its grain and other food supplies from the Black Sea to global markets. But at the same time, the US and other countries have been making deals with Ukraine for more military assistance, including advanced drones and other maritime technologies. This was supposed to be for Ukraine's defense, but the country went on a tear and started attacking Russia's energy infrastructure in 2024. In my view, this wasn't a smart strategy, and it also gave Russia a reason to push deeper into Ukraine's territory by taking over areas of Kharkiv. It's no wonder to me that Russia has the advantage over any given ultimatum to end the war; Ukraine never should have attacked Russia's energy infrastructure.
"Perhaps the introduction of ATACMS will change the geography of the battlefield. As many as 14 Russian airfields and launch sites now lie within their range, as do key points in Russian logistics, including equipment and troop staging areas and roads. All of the Kursk region of Russia is well within striking distance of Ukraine's new missiles. Russia's Ministry of Defense claims to have shot down five of them during a strike on Nov. 19."
The advantages of the ATACMS in Ukraine have already brought about the question of Russia's nuclear leverage again. An actual nuclear attack on a nuclear power does not seem reasonable to me unless the global economy shrinks to a near-zero level of significance in international relations. I shudder to think what international relations would look like right now if it wasn't for the global economy keeping countries at the negotiating table (without weapons). Otherwise, the world would be seeing a lot more turmoil, as many other countries would have reasons to attack one another without the need for increasing trade ties.
That's why I do believe that multilateralism is effective in stemming the tide of war. The Russia-Ukraine War is not a matter of multilateralism versus bilateralism; it is just the case of Russia's military strategy to protect its own borders from NATO, along with the desire to gain more territory in the process. I don't buy in to the "insanity gambit" theory that Friedman supports about President Putin. Putin uses the nuclear threat as a way to thwart NATO's objectives. International relations has been built on concepts of security and defense that have allowed nuclear powers to hold the greatest advantage over other countries in the international system. It's not about insanity; it is just practical power politics during a time of war.
"The decision to use ATACMS does, however, open the door for more escalation. For starters, Moscow has responded by finalizing an updated nuclear doctrine, which lowers the threshold for a nuclear strike to include a conventional attack against Russia that poses a "critical threat" to its territorial integrity or sovereignty."
The U.S. and NATO have been reluctant to intervene in the Ukraine war — not because it wants to let Russia gain more territory at the expense of the government in Kiev. The reason has more to do with global commodities. The European Union is frightened by the prospects of higher energy prices in the near term, and they have no choice but to look to Russia for more energy supplies. The recent Southeast Europe Summit held in Croatia, where Ukrainian President Zelensky met with his Balkan counterparts to discuss the region's stance on Russian aggression. Europe's security and defense, and thus the integration of the NATO alliance, will depend on the Balkan countries' stance toward Russian aggression in the near- and long-term.
Russia is only likely to attack the Baltic countries in the event of a naval blockade. Is NATO willing to carry out a naval blockade on the Baltic Sea? That is the question. I am not doubting that NATO could impose a naval blockade; I am also not doubting that Russia would likely attack if there's a naval blockade targeting Russia on the Baltic Sea. In fact, Lithuania effectively shut out Belarus — and indirectly Russian fertilizer products — by restricting Belarus' access to the Baltic Sea through Lithuanian territory via rail. Belarus is one of the world's largest fertilizer suppliers, so Lithuania's action was a contributing factor to why fertilizer prices went up following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In my view, this was a major step taken by NATO to target Belarus's support for Russia's military actions.
A sovereign, democratic Ukraine is exactly what the US should stand for, and I applaud Oksana Kukurudza's Sunflowers Rarely Break and her delegation for their earnest work on US-Ukraine relations. I also believe that European peace and security is at stake due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. What I don't understand is why the conversations keep shifting from Ukraine's success against Russia on the battlefield, to the US and NATO are not doing enough to support Ukraine's military needs in the war. It's as if the mainstream narrative is suggesting that Ukraine is winning the war at times; but then Russia fights back and now the fate of Ukraine's defense depends on more military assistance from the US.
"Notably, the Biden administration authorized the use of ATACMS against Russian territory in the final months of its tenure. It's unlikely the decision by itself will affect any peace plan proposed by President-elect Donald Trump, who has yet to make a statement on the conflict, now in its 1,000th day."
Chaos is name of the game in geopolitical trends right now. All of the countries are trying to manage a volatile global economy, while the outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war remain out of sight for many of the countries that are feeling the worst of the effects from the ongoing US and EU sanctions regimes. Meanwhile, China is not showing any interest in changing its position of Russia's role in international affairs. That's why Vladimir Putin is likely to continue the aggression and war campaign in Ukraine — who has the clout to stop him anyways? I don't think that a second Trump term is going to do this spiral of chaos between Russia and Ukraine any favors, either, since Trump will be more focused on taming the Middle East conflict.
This is why Donald Trump is such a controversial president. His administration seeks to disrupt both of those circumstances facing the bi-polarization of the global economy; one which is under the new China model; and the one of the traditional US-led world order with its allies. On the other hand, I do not believe that Trump is going to set the country in a similar direction like he did in 2016. A lot of the major geopolitical shifts have already taken place since then; and now it is all about keeping the wheels turning for the US foreign policy. The two important objectives in the short-term will be NATO's imminent threat from Russia and finding a solution to the Middle East Conflict.