corriere.it
Russia's New Oreshnik Missile: Echoes of the Euromissile Crisis
The unveiling of Russia's new Oreshnik missile, with a range of almost 5,000 kilometers, capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads, has raised concerns about European security, echoing the Euromissile crisis of the 1970s and highlighting the need for a European response in the absence of effective international treaties.
- What are the immediate implications of the new Russian Oreshnik missile's capabilities for European security?
- In October 1977, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned about the Soviet SS-20 missiles, capable of reaching all of Europe, altering the strategic balance and potentially decoupling European from American defense. His warning led to NATO deploying Pershing II and Cruise missiles, but also to negotiations resulting in the 1987 INF Treaty eliminating them.
- How does the current situation with the Oreshnik missile compare to the Euromissile crisis of the 1970s, and what are the key differences?
- The 1977 crisis, and the subsequent INF treaty, highlighted the risk of escalation in Europe. The recent deployment of the Russian Oreshnik missile, capable of striking Europe within minutes, echoes this earlier threat. This mirrors the 1970s situation, where the SS-20 deployment prompted a similar response from NATO.
- Considering the limitations of bilateral negotiations and the end of the INF Treaty, what are the potential long-term strategies for Europe to address the threat posed by the Oreshnik missile?
- The Oreshnik missile, coupled with the expiration of the INF Treaty, creates a new arms race dynamic. Unlike the Cold War, a bilateral negotiation is unlikely to be effective. Europe needs to invest in its own missile defense systems to address the immediate threat and prepare for a prolonged arms race.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative around the escalating threat posed by Russia's new missiles, highlighting the potential dangers to Europe. While this threat is certainly real, the framing could be seen as emphasizing a specific narrative. For instance, the headline (if there were one) would likely focus on the danger of the Oreshnik missiles, potentially downplaying efforts at negotiations or other diplomatic solutions.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language at times to describe the potential consequences of the missiles, such as 'terrifying weapon' and 'Olocausto nucleare'. However, these are often directly related to the nature of nuclear weapons and are understandable in the context. There are not overt bias indicators.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions and perspectives of Russia and NATO, potentially omitting the viewpoints of other nations or actors involved in the missile discussions and arms race. The article mentions the US decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2002, but doesn't delve into the justifications or broader context of that decision. The perspective of Ukraine, whose conflict with Russia is the backdrop for the heightened tensions, seems relatively limited.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified view of the situation, framing it primarily as a conflict between Russia and NATO/the West. It touches on the complexity of the situation, but doesn't fully explore the multifaceted geopolitical landscape or the various interests at play beyond these two main blocks.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the re-emergence of the threat of intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), mirroring the tensions of the Cold War. This heightened military posturing and the breakdown of arms control treaties like the INF Treaty directly undermine international peace and security, increasing the risk of conflict and hindering efforts towards disarmament. The development and deployment of new missiles like the Russian Oreshnik and potential NATO responses fuel an arms race, diverting resources from sustainable development and increasing global instability. The quote about Putin challenging the West to a "technological duel" exemplifies this dangerous escalation.