'Lightning-fast' response: Escalation or rhetoric?
These days, most Latvians don't rule out the possibility of a Russian attack on their country. It shares not only a border with Russia but also a history — generally referred to in Latvia as the Soviet occupation.
The three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have been independent since the 1990s, and want to remain so. Now more than ever. The Russian attack on Ukraine came as a particular shock to those countries that failed to take heed when US intelligence warned an invasion was imminent.
Many were therefore deeply alarmed by Putin's threat at a meeting of lawmakers in St Petersburg last week of a "lightning-fast" response to outside interference in Ukraine. "We have all the tools for this. And we will not boast, we will use them if necessary. And I want everyone to know that …We have already taken all the decisions on this."
Lithuanian paramilitary groups
More than saber-rattling?
But which tools, exactly? Independent military analyst Yuri Fyodorov believes it's possible that Putin was referring to nuclear weapons since his threat was clearly directed at nuclear-weapon states, chief among them the US and Britain. "Putin and his advisers are increasingly convinced that Ukraine cannot be defeated with conventional weapons," Fyodorov told DW. "The Kremlin sees nuclear weapons as a last resort, the tool that will determine the outcome of the war."
But the analyst believes Putin could also be referring to the 3M22 Zircon, Russia's anti-ship hypersonic cruise missile with the NATO reporting name SS-N-33. Zircon may have an impressive flight speed, says Fyodorov, but it can only reach targets up to 400 kilometers away. "But Putin likes it and is proud of it," he says. Still, the analyst has doubts about its effectiveness. "Its speed is significant in terms of destroying moving sea targets, because it means they cannot move far from their position." However most land targets are stationary so speed plays less of a role. "Moreover the missile has to reduce its speed when it reenters the atmosphere or it burns up."
A reaction to Ramstein
Andrei Kolesnikov, a political expert at the Carnegie Moscow Center, which was shut by the Russian government in April, sees Putin's threat as a reaction to the meeting of NATO allies at the Ramstein US air force base in Germany.
"What he says is not strategic but tactical, reactive and opportunistic," he told DW. The Russian president changes course according to the situation. "When he says that everything is going to plan, no one actually knows that the plan is and what his objectives are." Kolesnikov suggests that Putin may not even have clear objectives but simply reacts to changing circumstances. "It depends what is happening in the West and on the front," he says.
"Putin is without a doubt a man whose back is against the wall and who is responding with increasing brutality," he points out. There's even an increasing brutality to his rhetoric, he says. "He was never especially open to dialogue but in his current state of mind he sees negotiations as superfluous."
Germany's Ukraine U-Turn
Independent Russian political expert Abbas Galyamov, meanwhile, dismisses Putin's words as empty propaganda. "Everyone recognizes that the Russian leader is a paper tiger," he said in a DW interview. "He needs to prove that he is dangerous but he is failing to do so and words are all that is left to him." His threat was an attempt to convince his audience of his strength, he believes.
"We know the facts: Russia launched an attack and committed war crimes, while Ukraine responded heroically," says Galyamov. For western politicians, these are the facts that will decide their next moves. The political scientist therefore believes it's unlikely that Putin's warning will bring about any shift in the West's stance on Ukraine. Putin's mistake, concludes Galyamov, is to think that his words carry any weight.
This article was originally published in German