The main political intrigue of recent days is whether or not the Americans will allow Kiev to attack Russian territory with its long-range missiles. This issue not only concerns Ukraine and Russia, but also raises the global threat level.
It seems like a real detective story has been unfolding in recent days, full of fog, hints and contradictory reports from «reliable sources» and various media. Everyone is confused: did the U.S. really allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with its missiles or not? Often it feels like there’s a deliberate disinformation campaign at play, with officials providing conflicting information to mislead and throw everyone off track.
But let’s start at the beginning. Recently, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made a visit to the White House to meet with President Biden and discuss the issue of Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia with long-range missiles. It’s hard not to draw certain parallels, as prior to the invasion of Iraq, the then British Prime Minister made a similar trip to the U.S. to support «big brother» and essentially «bless» the Gulf War. It seems that one of the objectives of the British Prime Minister’s visit now is to fully support the Americans in giving Ukraine permission to strike deep into Russia.
Starmer’s visit to the White House was preceded by a trip to Kiev by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy. During that visit, they met with Zelensky, who asked for permission to use American ATACMS missiles and British Storm Shadow missiles deep inside Russian territory. A list of potential targets was also given to them during the meeting.
«Among them are command posts, fuel and ammunition depots, and troop concentrations», Reuters reports.
When asked if they would allow this madness, the response was extremely evasive. The ministers gave no concrete answers.
Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine is extremely dire. Ukrainian forces are being systematically pushed out of the Kursk region, and Russian troops are advancing on Ukrainian territory. For Zelensky, the situation is becoming catastrophic, which is why he requests permission to strike deeper into Russian territory to disrupt Russian air strikes with guided bombs. It’s clear that Russia doesn’t need to position its planes and ammunition dumps right on Ukraine’s borders; they can be kept where Ukrainian forces can’t reach them. This is why Zelensky relies on ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles.
For the Americans and the British, the situation is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they would like to allow the strikes, but on the other hand, they fear that it could have disastrous consequences for them.
In May, Western media reported that the British had given permission for such strikes, but the Americans quickly cooled off and denied the British statements. The White House has consistently emphasized that long-range missiles can only be used against targets in Russian regions near Ukraine that pose a threat to it. But logically, why provide long-range missiles only to use them near Ukraine’s borders? It doesn’t make sense.
Judging by British statements, they are firmly in favor of allowing the use of long-range missiles, but they can’t go against the more cautious Americans — at least not yet. However, they seem to be constantly looking for an excuse to allow their use. For example, after the U.S.-British meeting, a new phase of discussion began: should Ukraine now be allowed to attack with long-range missiles, since Iran has allegedly supplied new ballistic missiles to Russia and Russian ordnance is reportedly falling on NATO countries, posing a threat to the alliance’s security? We should note that there is no evidence of a large-scale supply of Iranian missiles, and the missile that fell in Poland turned out to be Ukrainian.
Not all NATO countries are willing to give unanimous consent to the use of long-range missiles. Formally, approval is required from all countries involved in their development and production. The British missile, for example, is the product of cooperation between four countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, and France.
The most active proponents of deep strikes against Russia are the U.S. and Britain, both of which are far from the potential theater of war in Europe. Therefore, they are trying to find new arguments to convince NATO allies, especially Germany. However, Chancellor Scholz, after losing the local elections, realized that the German electorate is tired of Ukraine and doesn’t want to support it. Scholz therefore refused to supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles, arguing that it would require German military personnel to be stationed in Ukraine, a risk he wasn’t willing to take. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius went further, stating at a press conference that EU countries should decide on a bilateral basis whether to allow Ukraine to use the long-range weapons supplied to them.
«All arms suppliers have to decide how they’re going to be used — that’s provided for in international law», he said at the press conference. He also declined to comment on statements by the U.S. and U.K. regarding long-range weapons, saying, «It’s not for me to judge what they’re talking about». In essence, the Germans are distancing themselves from the issue and avoiding responsibility for the consequences.
President Macron of France is also cautious. So it seems that the next scenario will be Britain lobbying to support the American decision to allow the use of long-range missiles, similar to the Gulf War scenario.
There’s also a version that suggests that the Americans might agree to allow the use of long-range missiles — but not American, but British and French. The idea is clear: the Americans, with an election coming up, can claim that they had nothing to do with it because the missiles were British and French.
So what do we end up with? We have completely contradictory reports: the Americans have authorized strikes deep into Russia, then a reputable source says no, they haven’t, followed by news that the White House is asking Zelensky for a list of targets, followed by confirmation that those targets have been authorized for strikes, followed by another denial.
But there’s an old rule: When there’s so much conflicting information, it means the decision has already been made, and everything else is just a smokescreen.
Recently, Politico reported that NATO countries could announce the lifting of restrictions on Ukrainian strikes deep into Russia during the UN General Assembly in late September. According to the publication, its British sources indicate that a positive decision could be announced at the UN General Assembly in New York from September 24 to 30.
Will NATO take this step? Especially after President Vladimir Putin’s statement that if Kiev is granted permission, it would mean direct involvement of NATO countries, the U.S. and Europe in the war in Ukraine.
Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said: «Yesterday’s statements by Vladimir Vladimirovich were very carefully noted here. Several former officials called me and asked what was behind these statements, and I simply said: «Colleagues, don’t play with fire».
Later, White House spokesman John Kirby said Washington was taking Russia’s warnings seriously. U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller also said the U.S. was closely monitoring the Russian leader’s words.
After all, any rational politician understands that NATO missile strikes deep into Russian territory will not lead to concessions from a weakened Russia. On the contrary, it will only escalate the conflict. Let’s not forget that Russia has a significant arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. So why play with fire?
So what do we have in the end? On the one hand, there are statements that the Americans have not yet authorized the use of their long-range weapons, but on the other hand, there are hints and half-hints from the U.S. administration. This reflects a situation that has been repeated since the beginning of the conflict. It was the same with all kinds of weapons. First they said that anti-tank Javelins wouldn’t be delivered, but Ukraine was armed with them; then they swore that German Leopard tanks wouldn’t see combat, but now they are in use; they claimed that American fighter jets wouldn’t be delivered to Ukraine, but now Ukrainian pilots are flying F-16s.
One can predict that the same will happen with long-range missiles: a stream of diversionary political statements, media leaks, and, in reality, I am confident that the decision to allow strikes deep into Russian territory has already been made. It will probably be announced before the U.S. presidential election for a simple reason: if Trump becomes president, his stance on helping Ukraine is somewhat different from Biden’s.