The joint statement by the United States and Germany regarding the deployment of long-range missiles within a multifunctional operational group in Germany by 2026, with the intention of permanent stationing, has stirred unease among Europeans, reminding them of the missile crises of 1962 and 1983. Fears flared up after revelations that former U.S. President Biden had approved the use of long-range missiles against Russia for Ukraine, and panic ensued when Moscow presented a document titled “The Foundations of Geopolitics in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence.”
The updated nuclear doctrine states that nuclear weapons are the ultimate measure for protecting the sovereignty of the country. Is the world sliding toward a Great War, and have the United States, by playing Russian roulette, wagered the heads of Europeans?
NEGOTIATIONS – LONG AND SECRET
Ahead of the NATO summit in July this year, the governments of the United States and Germany issued a joint statement about the deployment of long-range missiles in Germany in 2026. American and European media reported on this news, noting that negotiations on deploying these missiles in Germany had been conducted for a long time and in secrecy.
The statement mentions that the missiles will be sporadically deployed as part of a multifunctional operational group in Germany in 2026. To recall, in 2021, the U.S. military established the 2nd Multifunctional Operational Group at the headquarters of the U.S. Army Europe and Africa in Wiesbaden, Germany, with the goal of providing the command with capabilities beyond traditional ground warfare tactics.
CONVENTIONAL ARMAMENT?
The statement also specifies the type of missiles to be deployed: “Once fully developed, this conventional long-range weaponry will include SM-6 missiles, Tomahawk missiles, and hypersonic weapons in development, with significantly greater range than current ground-based weaponry in Europe.”
What’s problematic about this part of the statement? First, hypersonic weaponry, especially in development, cannot be considered conventional since it involves cutting-edge technology previously unused and not yet fully developed by the U.S. Second, the range of the SM-6 missile is between 300 and 500 km at best, meaning these are shorter-range missiles suitable for tactical purposes within a single region.
A RECIPROCAL RESPONSE COULD FOLLOW
Tomahawk missiles, with a range of 1,600 km, are actually medium-range missiles (although some categorize them as long-range because they are cruise, not ballistic, missiles). These missiles are used in naval operations and launched from ships and submarines. Although Germany has a coastline on the North and Baltic Seas, it does not have a navy comparable to other major powers. Moreover, it should be noted that these missiles can also be equipped with nuclear warheads.
The statement concludes by saying that the U.S. is undertaking this deployment to demonstrate “the United States’ commitment to NATO and its contribution to Europe’s integrated deterrence capability.”
Since this primarily pertains to deterring Russia, the question arises: What happens if Russia responds reciprocally? Are the U.S. prepared to play Russian roulette, but with European heads?
A REFLECTION IN THE MIRROR
The New York Times and Reuters report that the outgoing U.S. President Joseph Biden’s administration approved Ukraine’s use of long-range ATACMS cruise missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory.
On the other hand, reactions from the Russian Federation suggest that deploying such missiles will not go unanswered. In other words, it is expected that similar missiles will be deployed by Russia as well, raising the question of who might launch the first missile to preempt the other—a scenario that could turn into a serious European problem.
MISSILES SHATTER AGREEMENTS
Throughout history, there have been several crises and broken agreements regarding missiles. What they all have in common is that these activities occurred along the U.S.-Russia (formerly USSR) axis. One such example is the Missile Crisis when Khrushchev secretly installed missiles in Cuba as reciprocity for American medium-range missiles stationed in Turkey and Italy. This was a historical moment when the world came closest to nuclear catastrophe.
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union deployed medium-range missiles (SS-20) capable of hitting targets in Western Europe. In response, NATO implemented the “dual-track” solution as part of a broader NATO strategy. This involved deploying medium-range missiles in Europe, including Tomahawks, while simultaneously engaging in diplomatic negotiations and pursuing supposed nuclear disarmament.
THE SHORT-LIVED DUAL-TRACK SOLUTION
The dual-track solution ultimately resulted in the signing of the INF Treaty in 1987. This agreement, signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, banned the development and production of missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km, both cruise and ballistic. The signatories also committed to destroying their arsenals of such missiles by the early 1990s, leading to the elimination of about 2,600 missiles. This treaty was a significant mechanism for nuclear arms control and remained in effect until a few years ago.
Specifically, in 2018, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the treaty due to alleged violations by Russia, followed by Russia’s similar accusations and withdrawal in 2019. Both parties withdrew their representatives from the treaty, reigniting the threat posed by medium-range missiles.
THE U.S. AGENDA
Before the special operation in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin twice attempted to negotiate a moratorium on these missiles—first in September 2019, proposing an agreement on non-deployment, and then in October 2020, presenting an expanded proposal. However, the U.S. rejected both proposals, clearly signaling that it did not intend to limit its arsenal of medium-range missiles and that its withdrawal from the INF Treaty had a different motive.
The stated reason was Russia’s development of a new 9M729 cruise missile for the Iskander-M tactical system, allegedly in violation of the treaty. The real motive, however, was the U.S.’s ambition to develop such an arsenal. By 2019, the U.S. had already begun developing short- and medium-range missile systems.
MODIFICATIONS FOR LAND DEPLOYMENT
The weapons mentioned in the statement will be deployed in Germany under the control of a U.S. operational group as part of the 56th Artillery Command, re-established in 2021 after being disbanded 30 years ago.
It is noted that this weaponry will have a greater range than current armaments on European soil. Additionally, given that the mentioned missiles are naval, it is assumed they will undergo modernization and modifications for land deployment. Medium-range naval missiles were preserved during the destruction of missile arsenals because they were not covered by the INF Treaty, which applied only to land-based systems. Considering Germany’s geographical position, military capabilities, and strong NATO ties, deploying these missiles could pose a serious threat to Russia, prompting questions about Russia’s potential response.
EUROPE IN RUSSIA’S CROSSHAIRS
Statements by Russian officials, particularly Vladimir Putin’s attempts to reinstate the INF Treaty, suggest that Russia does not wish to reignite a Cold War-style arms race. However, faced with such a threat, it will have to respond reciprocally. This likely means deploying medium-range missiles in its European territory or allied countries, positioning Europe within Russia’s reach.
It is unlikely that Russia, though militarily constrained by ongoing conflicts, will wait until 2026 to prepare a response to the deployment of missiles in Germany. Nor is it likely that the U.S. will replicate the success of the dual-track solution from the 1980s, as the world today operates within different geopolitical, economic, and energy frameworks. In this regard, it is sufficient to consider China’s position then and now.
FIVE TIMES THE SPEED OF SOUND
Additionally, the U.S. president’s approval for Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles pertains to supersonic tactical ballistic missiles with speeds five times the speed of sound and ranges of up to 300 km. However, it is worth noting that Russian forces have already successfully intercepted these missiles during attacks on Crimea’s coast.
When asked in June how Russia would react if Ukraine were allowed to target Russian territory with weapons supplied by Europe, Putin responded: “First, we will naturally enhance our air defense systems and destroy their missiles. Second, we believe that if someone thinks it is possible to strike our territory with such weapons and cause us problems, why wouldn’t we provide similar weapons to regions worldwide where they will target sensitive facilities in the countries doing this to Russia?”
Thus, if these missiles were indeed launched, Russia’s response could involve supplying long-range missiles to Western adversaries. For instance, this could involve arming the Houthis with weaponry capable of targeting American or British aircraft carriers. Indirect missile launches by either side would signify direct conflict between Russia and NATO.
BEHIND-THE-SCENES NEGOTIATIONS
What is particularly concerning, in addition to the announcement of medium-range missile deployment in Germany and the U.S. president’s approval for long-range missiles, is the potential involvement of more countries, including those in the Balkan region. Reports in diplomatic and military circles suggest that the U.S. is secretly negotiating with Bulgaria and Romania to deploy medium-range missiles on their territories.
If this happens, the world could face a catastrophe akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Placing such missiles in Romania and Bulgaria would be a direct blow to Russian security and undoubtedly provoke an extremely negative Russian response, leading to further escalation and serious, far-reaching consequences.
RISK OF MISUSE
It is worth recalling that NATO has already installed an Aegis Ashore missile defense shield in Romania, equipped with interceptor missiles designed for defense against ballistic missiles. Although NATO claims this system lacks nuclear capabilities and is intended solely for defensive purposes, Russia has expressed serious concerns about its installation.
NATO asserts that the missile shield in Deveselu uses SM-3 interceptors incapable of offensive strikes. However, since Aegis Ashore employs a launcher similar to the MK 41 system, capable of launching Tomahawks, the potential for misuse of this shield cannot be dismissed.
If medium-range missiles are deployed in Romania and Bulgaria, as unofficial reports suggest, this could lead to strengthened Russian troops and missile systems near NATO borders, potentially dragging the entire world into catastrophe. Moreover, the launch of long-range missiles toward Russian territory would undoubtedly mean open conflict with NATO members, further involving previously neutral states. This would mark the onset of a third global war.
The question remains how the newly elected U.S. president will act in this situation and whether they will become a new Kennedy in this game of missile roulette.
