Monthly Archives: January 2026

Possible Oreshnik Signaling from Belarus: How NATO Should Not Overreact

Escalation Dynamics, NATO–Russia Relations, Nuclear Strategy, , , , , , , , ,
The Ghost of Oreshnik in Belarus. Adapted from an image © Getty Images.

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on January 18, 2026

Russia’s potential signaling of the Oreshnik missile from Belarus illustrates a strategic ambiguity; misreading it could allow perception to become a tool of escalation without a single missile being deployed.

Introduction

Russia’s emergence of the Oreshnik missile concept—accompanied by visible but incomplete military infrastructure activity in Belarus—has triggered speculative concern across Western political, media, and analytical communities. Rail spurs, loading ramps, support vehicles, and command-and-control elements are often interpreted as evidence of a possible forward missile deployment threatening NATO’s eastern flank.

This article argues that misinterpretations of Oreshnik and Belarusian infrastructure can produce unintended consequences for NATO. It explores possible ways NATO might respond, the risks of validating Russian signaling, and how perception itself can amplify strategic effects. The analysis focuses on possible scenarios, rather than confirmed deployments or operational realities (Adamsky 2019; Colby 2021; Acton 2018; Сообщество железнодорожников Беларуси 2025).

Keywords: Oreshnik, Russia, NATO, Belarus, escalation management, coercive signaling, intermediate-range missile, latent capability

Continue reading Possible Oreshnik Signaling from Belarus: How NATO Should Not Overreact →

Economic Endurance and Strategic Recalibration: The U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 and the Eurasian Political Economy of War

Grand Strategy, Political Economy of War, , , , , , ,
Alexander Perepechko. The Eurasian Political Economy of War.

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on January 9, 2026

How do wars persist when armies stall and sanctions bite? The answer lies not on the battlefield, but in energy flows, trade rerouting, and economic endurance. This flagship long-read dissects the U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 against the reality of Russia’s war economy, showing how Eurasian markets—not Western finance—now determine strategic survival. As oil and gas revenues shift from Europe to China and India, the conflict in Ukraine emerges as a continental political-economic war, testing whether American power can shape interdependence rather than simply weaponize it. Recent political and economic changes in Venezuela may soon add an additional layer to these dynamics, particularly regarding energy and commodity flows, potentially affecting U.S. strategic calculations in Eurasia.

Abstract

The U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS 2025) marks a decisive shift in how American power is conceived and exercised under conditions of prolonged great-power competition and deep economic interdependence (Posen, 2014). Rather than signaling retrenchment or a return to isolationism, the strategy reflects a hybrid recalibration centered on selective engagement, allied burden-sharing, and economic endurance. Drawing on evidence from global energy and commodity trade (CREA, 2025; Trading Economics, 2024a, 2024b), this article argues that Russia’s war against Ukraine—while militarily localized—has become a Eurasian political-economic conflict, sustained by continental market substitution and asymmetric interdependence. The analysis shows how contemporary wars are increasingly decided not by battlefield outcomes alone, but by the ability to shape, exploit, and withstand interdependent economic systems over time (Brooks & Wohlforth, 2016).

Keywords: U.S. National Security Strategy 2025; strategic endurance; weaponized interdependence; political economy of war; energy security; economic warfare; Eurasian markets; great power competition.

Continue reading Economic Endurance and Strategic Recalibration: The U.S. National Security Strategy 2025 and the Eurasian Political Economy of War →