By Joakim Mol Romero
Ukraine is continuing to push for permission from Western allies to launch long-range missiles into Russian territory, as Western leaders mull this potentially critical decision.
The impasse comes as Ukraine is trying to build support for its peace plan, which is so far scarce in detail. In a speech to the UN, Zelensky reiterated the threat posed by Russia, whilst criticising a joint peace proposal by Brazil and China as a ‘frozen truce’ rather than ‘real peace’. He also spoke of his country’s new victory plan, which is an attempt to bolster its negotiating position before any possible talks with Russia. The ability to strike Russian territory is a central component hereof.
While Zelensky was speaking in New York, Putin addressed Russia’s powerful security council, making his strongest warning yet to the West against allowing Ukraine to launch strikes deep into Russian territory. In a thinly veiled threat, Putin said that a proposed change to Russia’s nuclear doctrine would mean any attack using Western missiles would be seen as a joint operation.
As part of his vehement push to convince Kyiv’s allies to drop their reluctance around the use of long-range missiles to strike Russian territory, Zelensky has claimed that ‘we are closer to the end of the war’ than might be expected. He is thereby framing the missile decision as a potentially decisive one, which could turn the course of the war irreversibly in his country’s favour.
"Any possible decision by Western leaders is part of the fine balance they are attempting to strike between providing adequate support to the Ukrainian army in its valiant fight, and overly antagonising Russia."
Ukraine’s demands are directed at the US, UK, and France, three of its closest allies, which have been steadfast supporters of the Ukrainian cause. The United States alone has provided $61.3 billion in military assistance since the start of the full-scale invasion. Part of this assistance has come in the form of long-range missiles, namely the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) manufactured by the US, the UK’s Storm Shadow, and its French equivalent Scalp. As it stands, these missiles are only allowed to be fired into occupied Ukrainian territory. However, their large range means they could be used to hit Russian military bases from which Moscow launches attacks against Ukraine, devastating its towns, cities, and energy infrastructure.
A recent FT article features soldiers near the embattled eastern Ukrainian city of Pokrovsk bemoaning the dithering in Washington. If only they were able to fight ‘with both hands instead of with one hand tied behind our back’ then Ukraine’s plucky troops might stand a chance against the powerful Russian army, lamented an attack drone operator.
Ukraine has already had some success launching attacks into Russian territory utilising drones, such as a September 17 attack on a weapons depot in the Tver region, with the blast described as ‘akin to an earthquake’. A decision in its favour regarding the use of missiles could deal a hammer blow to Russia’s logistical operations near the Ukrainian border.
In mid-September, the European Parliament ratcheted up pressure on national governments by adopting a resolution which stated that restrictions on strikes against military targets deep into Russian territory undermined efforts by Ukraine to protect its cities and infrastructure. The resolution, which was non-binding, demonstrated the difference in opinions as regards the expansion of weapons use.
Despite the seeming urgency of approving missile use, Western leaders do have some reason to be sceptical about claims relating to the proximity of the war’s end. Zelensky is undeniably a hugely effective advocate for his country, and he is therefore prone to embellishing the state of play to secure advantageous deals for Ukraine. When weighing up the decision on missiles, leaders must consider the actual situation on the ground, as a verdict based on half-truths will only come back to bite the West. For example, US officials have argued that Russia has already moved strike aircraft beyond the range of Western missiles in anticipation of a decision.
Any possible decision by Western leaders is part of the fine balance they are attempting to strike between providing adequate support to the Ukrainian army in its valiant fight, and overly antagonising Russia. Clearly, there is significant disagreement between Zelensky and his partners as to where this line should and does lie.
Zelensky appears to be throwing down the gauntlet towards Biden, Macron, and Starmer, yet they have wider considerations to take into account. The crux of their hesitance comes down to concerns surrounding retaliation from Russia. Putin has recklessly used nuclear rhetoric throughout the course of the conflict. Whilst his communications should be received with a generous pinch of salt, it is the obligation of any world leader to reduce the threat of nuclear war, however distant this may seem.
Russia, undeniably a bully, has made dire warnings throughout the war. It could be argued it is engaging in high-stakes sabre-rattling, yet who is to know where threats end and dangerous responses begin? Its citizens have so far been relatively insulated from the war, but events like the recent incursion into the Kursk Oblast have brought reality closer to home. If Western missiles were to begin striking Russian soil, Putin would be under heavy pressure to come up with an imposing response.
Additionally, the aforementioned leaders have domestic audiences to play to, whose support for the war over the past year has been notably wavering. Whilst the majority of their electorates are still rightly behind the Ukrainians and their right to defend themselves, any consequential escalation may push them to their limits.
Image: Ukrainian Presidential Office / ZUMAPRESS
Comentarios