Table of Contents
Ukraine and its Western allies have, in these almost three years of war, surpassed one after another the red lines marked by the Kremlin. The question is what will happen with the last one, the use of long-range missiles against targets in Russian territory.
These are the main Russian red lines that have fallen by the wayside:
HIMARS
In the first months of the war, the Ukrainian army had to defend itself due to the lack of modern heavy weapons. Russian troops advanced rapidly in the east and south of the country, and reached the outskirts of kyiv.
The contest took a sharp turn in mid-2022 with the supply to kyiv of the HIMARS rocket launcher systems, which made Russian mechanized brigades an affordable target. The Ukrainians then regained control of the northeastern Kharkiv region and the Russians were forced to withdraw from northern Kherson.
Then, Moscow began to publicly denounce the direct involvement of NATO countries, especially the United States, in the conflict.
Crimea
The Crimean peninsula, annexed by Russia in 2014, seemed untouchable in the first months of the war. That included the Crimean Bridge, the crown jewel of the area’s civilian infrastructure, and the Black Sea Fleet base in the port of Sevastopol.
The “holy place”, as the Russian president called it, Vladimir Putinsuffered the first attack in July 2022 against the Russian fleet headquarters. The following month the target was the Saki airfield.
The climax was the explosion at the Crimean Bridge in October, a successful Ukrainian military and propaganda operation that demonstrated the weakness of the Russian rearguard.
F-16 fighters
Aware of Russian superiority in the skies, the Ukrainian president, Volodímir Zelenskiinsistently requested war planes from its allies. The West refused for many months to meet kyiv’s demands despite the damage that Russian aviation caused to the country’s energy infrastructure.
In July 2023, the international coalition was finally formed to train Ukrainian pilots and technical personnel in the operation of American-made F-16 fighters. The condition imposed by Washington was that kyiv not use these aircraft on missions outside national territory.
According to the Western press, the first units are already in Ukrainian territory, although most of the more than one hundred devices promised by countries such as Belgium, Greece, Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway will not reach their destination until 2025.
Raid on Kursk
kyiv surprised even its own allies with the incursion last August into the Russian region of Kurskwhich Ukrainian troops have partially occupied since then without Russian troops having been able to expel them. This was the first invasion of Russian territory since Hitler’s forces attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941.
Russian experts and bloggers harshly criticized the Kremlin for leaving the border unguarded – barely protected by members of the Federal Security Service and recruits – while mobilizing hundreds of thousands of volunteers to fight in the neighboring country.
Many Western experts expected a ruthless reaction from the Kremlin, but the war has continued without major changes. Indeed, kyiv has continued to hammer other border regions, forcing Moscow to evacuate thousands of people from their homes, including more than 120,000 in Kursk.
ATACMS missiles
The Kremlin warned the West for months that authorizing Ukrainian attacks against targets in Russian territory with ATACMS missiles would be seen as a point of no return in the antagonism between Russia and NATO. The ATACMS have a range of up to 300 kilometers, so their radius of action allows kyiv to hit military installations throughout the Russian rear.
Although in principle there was talk that the president of the United States, Joe Bidenhad restricted these attacks to Kursk, the first Ukrainian operation targeted an installation in the neighboring region of Bryansk this Tuesday.
The Kremlin’s reaction was measured, although Western embassies closed their doors in kyiv on Wednesday due to the risk of an imminent massive attack by the Russian army.
Putin, who warned in September that this measure will mean that NATO and the United States “are at war with Russia,” threatened at the time to supply long-range weapons to the enemies of the West and approved this week a nuclear doctrine that allows responses with weapons. atomic bomb against conventional attacks. EFE (I)
#red #lines #kyiv #crossed #war
– **According to Dr. Petrov, how has the Kremlin responded to Ukraine and the West crossing several “red lines”, and what are the implications of this response for further escalation?**
## World Today News Exclusive: Ukraine’s Breach of the Kremlin’s Red Lines
**Host:** Welcome to World Today News. Today we delve into the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia, examining the crucial turning points in the war. Joining us are Dr. Elena Petrov, a leading expert on Russian military strategy and international relations, and Mr. Taras Klymenko, a senior analyst focusing on Ukrainian security and defense policy.
**The Shifting Sands: Crossing Red Lines**
**Host:**
Dr. Petrov, the article highlights several “red lines” that the West and Ukraine, in their support of Kyiv, have seemingly crossed. How has the Kremlin reacted to these transgressions, and what are the implications for further escalation?
**Dr. Petrov:**
The Kremlin has displayed a surprisingly measured response to many of these breaches, despite their often fiery rhetoric. However, this doesn’t mean they haven’t been affected. The attacks on Crimea and the incursion into Kursk have undoubtedly shaken Russia’s sense of security and military dominance. The question is, how long can this measured response last, particularly with Ukraine’s recent use of ATACMS missiles against Russian territory?
**Host:**
Mr. Klymenko, from the Ukrainian perspective, what strategic goals do these “red line” crossings serve? Are they simply a necessary response to the Russian invasion, or are there broader political intentions at play?
**Mr. Klymenko:**
These actions are absolutely necessary for Ukraine’s survival and eventual victory. We need the means to defend ourselves and reclaim our lost territories, and that includes utilizing the weapons and strategies at our disposal.
However, it’s crucial to understand that these decisions are not taken lightly. Each crossing of a “red line” is carefully calculated, considering both the immediate military impact and the potential for wider geopolitical consequences.
**The HIMARS Effect and the Air War**
**Host:**
The introduction of HIMARS rocket systems marked a significant turning point in the conflict. Dr. Petrov, how influential were these weapons in shaping the battlefield dynamic?
**Dr. Petrov:**
The HIMARS dramatically shifted the balance of power, allowing Ukraine to effectively target Russian logistics and command centers with precision. It demonstrably slowed the Russian advance and boosted Ukrainian morale. It’s a clear example of how Western-supplied weaponry can significantly impact the course of a conflict.
**Host:**
Mr. Klymenko, the F-16s are arriving in Ukraine, albeit gradually. What impact do you anticipate these fighter jets will have on the war, both in terms of air superiority and potentially attacking Russian territory?
**Mr. Klymenko:**
The F-16s will be a game-changer for our air defenses, allowing us to better counter Russian airpower and protect our critical infrastructure. While the international community has made clear its intentions regarding the use of these jets, their presence alone sends a powerful message to Russia and provides Ukraine with crucial tactical flexibility.
**The Nuclear Question: A Looming Threat?**
**Host:**
Ukraine’s recent use of ATACMS against Russian targets has sparked concerns about a potential escalation, potentially even nuclear involvement. Dr. Petrov, how likely is it that Putin will resort to nuclear weapons in response?
**Dr. Petrov:**
While Putin’s recent rhetoric has been alarming, it’s important to remember that deploying nuclear weapons is a highly complex and risky decision. It would have catastrophic consequences not just for Ukraine and Russia, but for the entire world. While we cannot rule it out entirely, it remains a scenario of last resort for Moscow.
**Host:**
Mr. Klymenko, how seriously do you take the threat of nuclear escalation, and what steps can be taken to prevent it?
**Mr. Klymenko:**
The threat of nuclear weapons is always a serious concern. However, we must not allow fear to paralyze us. International pressure on Russia, continued dialog, and unwavering support for Ukraine remain crucial in deterring Putin from taking such a dangerous step.
**Looking Ahead: Paths to Peace or Continued Conflict?**
**Host:**
Looking forward, what potential paths to a resolution exist in this conflict? Dr. Petrov, do you see any possibility of a negotiated settlement, or are we headed for a protracted and increasingly dangerous stalemate?
**Dr. Petrov:**
Finding a peaceful resolution remains a complex challenge. Both sides are deeply entrenched in their positions, and trust is at an all-time low. While a negotiated settlement is the most desirable outcome, it will require significant concessions from both sides and the involvement of international mediators.
**Host:**
Mr. Klymenko, from the Ukrainian standpoint, what are the non-negotiable demands for any potential peace agreement?
**Mr. Klymenko:**
Ukraine’s territorial integrity is non-negotiable. We will not accept any peace agreement that allows Russian forces to occupy our land or dictates our political future. Achieving lasting peace will require Russia to withdraw completely from Ukrainian territory, acknowledge Ukraine’s sovereignty, and commit to meaningful reparations.
**Host:**
Thank you both for your insightful analysis. This has been a crucial discussion on a conflict that continues to grip the world’s attention. We will continue to follow developments closely and offer our viewers in-depth coverage and analysis.
