Table of Contents
Photo caption, Vladimir Putin has reiterated on past occasions that Moscow would consider the measure as a “direct participation” of NATO countries in the war in Ukraine.Item information
- Author, Editor
- Author’s title, BBC News World
-
4 hours
The Kremlin accused Joe Biden‘s administration on Monday of “adding fuel to the fire and continuing to fuel tension” by allowing Ukraine to use long-range US missiles to attack Russian territory.
Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the move represents a new level of U.S. involvement in Russia‘s war in Ukraine.
Moscow reiterated that it would consider an attack with a US missile on its territory as an aggression coming from the United States and not Ukraine, in a statement published this Monday.
Ukraine has been using the US Army’s Long-Range Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) for more than a year to attack Russian targets on Ukrainian territory.
But President Joe Biden’s decision would allow Kyiv to attack the Russian military on its own territory with missiles that have a range of up to 300 kilometers and are difficult to intercept due to their high speed.
The measure has provoked a furious response from various media and political figures in Russia, according to Steve Rosenberg, BBC correspondent and editor in Moscow.
The website of the government-controlled Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta claims that Biden has made one of the most provocative and unpredictable decisions of his administration and that it could have “catastrophic consequences.”
Deputy Leonid Slutsky, head of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia, sympathetic to Vladimir Putin’s government, also assures that the decision would lead to a major escalation and serious consequences.
For his part, Russian senator Vladimir Dzhabarov described it as “an unprecedented step towards World War III.”
President Vladimir Putin has so far remained silent.
image copyrightUkrainian Armed Forces
image captionUkraine released a video in October 2023 showing the launch of ATACMS missiles for the first time.
For many Western analysts and leaders, it is Russia that has recently “added fuel to the fire” by sending North Korean troops into the war zone to fight alongside Russian forces against Ukraine.
According to American media sources, the change of course by the Biden government is due to the participation of North Korean troops in the ranks of the Russian army.
Waiting for the assault
In late September, Moscow announced changes to Russian nuclear doctrine and the preconditions under which Russia could use nuclear weapons.
The measure was interpreted in the West as an indirect message to the United States and Europe not to authorize Ukraine to use long-range American missiles on Russian territory.
Ukraine has been asking for permission to use ATACMS inside Russia for months.
“This is a very important decision for us,” Serhii Kuzan, president of the Kyiv-based Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center, told the BBC.
“It’s not something that’s going to change the course of the war, but I think it will make our forces more equal.”
Kuzan said the decision came just in time to counter the expected start of a major assault by Russian and North Korean troops, designed to dislodge Ukrainian forces from Russia’s Kursk region.
It is estimated that the assault will take place in the coming days.
The calculations of the West
Analysis by Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent
Since the Russian military launched its full-scale war against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, NATO, the West, and specifically the White House, have been caught facing a major challenge: how to provide Ukraine with sufficient military support without entering into a direct confrontation with Russia?
It is a challenge that persists today.
The most radical Western commentators, including former American and British generals, argue that Putin’s repeated threats of retaliation were never followed through and were simply intended to scare NATO into not sending the kind of weapons Ukraine needed.
Jake Sullivan, the US National Security Advisor, is known to be cautious on that issue and there are reports that he was upset by London’s more aggressive stance and its dispatch of heavy weapons such as large battle tanks and F fighter jets. -16.
Ultimately, Putin understands that the old Cold War concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is still valid today.
Russia may have the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, but the Kremlin knows that if a nuclear weapon were ever used on any Western city, Moscow would be destroyed in a matter of minutes.
However, there are many other, less apocalyptic ways in which Russia could respond to the use of ATACMS missiles on Russian territory.
These include sabotaging undersea cables or arming Yemen’s Houthis with powerful anti-ship missiles.
Subscribe here to our new newsletter to receive a selection of the best content of the week every Friday.
And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.
Questions for Guest 1:
1. How did countries like the United States and Russia interpret President Biden’s decision to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles? What are the potential consequences of this move?
2. Can you elaborate on the significance of Moscow’s warning that it would consider an attack with a US missile on its territory as an aggression coming from the United States and not Ukraine? What factors contributed to this position?
3. What changes have been made by both sides to their nuclear policies, and how have these changes affected the dynamics of the war?
4. How do you see the ongoing military and political support from NATO impacting the war in Ukraine?
5. What are the potential risks associated with the increasing involvement of third parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
Questions for Guest 2:
1. In your opinion, what are the strategic implications of Ukraine’s request for ATACMS missiles and President Biden’s decision to provide them? How might these missiles change the course of the war?
2. How have Western powers communicated their willingness to support Ukraine without escalating tensions with Russia? Do you think this was an effective approach?
3. What role have intelligence organizations such as the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center played in supporting Ukraine’s efforts on the battlefield?
4. What other types of support, beyond weapons, has Ukraine received from its allies, and how effective has it been?
5. How have international laws and norms surrounding warfare been affected by the conflict in Ukraine? Are there any potential violations or loopholes that have emerged?
