Critics of this theory claimed that Ukraine had no imminent prospect of joining NATO, so that couldn't be the impetus for Russia's threatened invasion.
Yes, the alliance had promised in 2008 that Ukraine would *someday* join, but there was zero urgency.
My counter was that Ukraine's development of indigenous missiles was closing Moscow's window of opportunity to act.
If Moscow wanted to *ever* stop NATO membership, it was running out of time.
There were two main homegrown Ukrainian missile systems that concerned Russia:
1. The Hrim-2 ballistic missile, capable of striking Moscow from Ukrainian territory
2. The R-360 Neptune anti-ship cruise missile, capable of striking Russian Navy ships in the Black Sea
Before the war, the efficacy of both of these systems remained a major question mark.
It was unclear whether Ukraine's military-industrial base was actually capable of producing modern standoff weapons that could threaten Russia.
Even pro-Ukrainian sources were doubtful.
Today, the Hrim-2 ballistic missile has not yet been fielded.
Ukraine is reportedly continuing to develop it, with covert financial assistance from Saudi Arabia.
However, the R-360 Neptune is reportedly the system that Ukraine used to sink the Mosvka.
If that is accurate, then the broader efficacy of Ukraine's homegrown missile programs can no longer be questioned.
According to U.S. intelligence assessments, one of those systems just destroyed the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet – perhaps the worst naval loss since WW2.
Given the success of Ukrainian military modernization, more credence must be given to the "narrowing window" theory to explain Russia's decision to invade.
If NATO admitted Ukraine *after* its missile-modernization program was complete, Russia would have had few options.
Indeed, as the successful use of the Neptune missiles against the Moskva illustrates, it is arguable that Russia *overestimated* its window of opportunity.
From a purely military perspective, Russia might have been better served by invading Ukraine *earlier*.
To be clear, this is not an endorsement of the Russian invasion.
The point is not to rationalize or excuse Russia's foreign policy.
It is to understand *why* Russia invaded, so we can deter future Russian aggression.
With that in mind, the sinking of the Moskva shows that Russian fears of a closing window of opportunity were sound.
Ukraine's missile modernization programs *were* a threat to RU conventional supremacy.
Moscow *was* running out of time to preempt Ukraine's NATO membership.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 Russia is escalating its controversial claims about U.S. bioweapons in Ukraine.
Today, a member of the Academy of Military Sciences -- Alexander Bartosh -- claimed America was developing *gene weapons* in Ukraine targeting Slavs. 🚨
To be clear, I am NOT endorsing the theory that America was developing gene-weapons in Ukraine.
I am *reporting* on this messaging from Russia's national-security establishment.
What Bartosh says is believed by the Russian public, and affects their support for the war.
Bartosh claims that it's not a coincidence the U.S. was performing anti-slavic gene-weapons development in Ukraine.
He says the laboratories need to be located close to the targets of the gene weapons to replicate the necessary environmental and demographic conditions.