by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] The US and UK have unexpectedly backed down on the issue of allowing the Kiev regime to fire Western long-range weapons at Russian territory. Just a few days ago, as Western media sources reported, they were ready to give the go-ahead; Volodymyr Zelensky even drafted a list of potential targets, which he handed over to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. But now their position has changed.
The British news agency Reuters writes that the White House is only prepared to turn a blind eye to the use of non-American missiles - the British Storm Shadow and French SCALP, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that permission should not be expected in the coming days, adding that the strikes "will not bring Ukraine victory in the war."
According to most experts, the change in position is connected with a rather tough statement by Vladimir Putin. The Russian president explained that in fact it is not just a question of permission to strike - this permission has existed for a long time, Ukraine strikes with what it can. At the same time, it is simply not capable of independently using high-precision long-range missiles.
“This is only possible using intelligence data from satellites, which Ukraine does not have; this data is only from satellites of either the European Union or the United States,” Putin said.
Flight assignments for these missile systems can also only be entered by NATO military personnel. This means, says the Russian president, “it is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not,” but “making a decision on whether NATO countries are directly participating in the military conflict or not.”
And if the decision is made, it “significantly changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict” and “will mean that NATO countries – the US, European countries – are at war with Russia.” Accordingly, Moscow will “make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
Putin did not say what the exact decisions would be. And this is logical - there is no need to give a reason for provocations. It is worth recalling Barack Obama's experience in Syria, when he said that if Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, he would send in troops. In the end, the opposition used chemical weapons, setting up both Assad and Obama, who was driven into a corner. From there, Russia actually saved him with a proposal to simply remove all Syrian chemical weapons.
Now the role of provocateur is played by Zelensky, who, unlike Western partners, is interested in maximum escalation of the conflict with the involvement of NATO countries. The West is now guessing, trying to calculate what options Putin has, and then decide the issue of missiles for Ukraine.
In reality, there aren't that many options.
The first and, it would seem, the most obvious is a retaliatory strike. After an American or British missile reaches a Russian city, a Russian missile hits a US or UK military facility on NATO territory. The option is obvious, but at the same time the most risky. In addition, Moscow obviously does not want to drive the West into a corner where it will have to choose between entering into a military conflict with Russia or recognizing the futility of NATO and its guarantees if there are no responses.
Given the current level of American and European politicians, it is unclear which step they will consider the lesser evil.
The second option is the destruction of American systems outside NATO territory. For example, reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea. This option is fraught with mirror responses from the US and Europe.
"The West has a large stock of answers to our answers. Starting with whether to shoot down our missiles and UAVs from the territory of European countries," explains Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, senior research fellow at the IMEMO RAS, to IA Regnum.
There is currently a consensus in the West that such actions could be perceived by Moscow as an attack. It is no coincidence that Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who voiced this idea, did not meet with understanding from his NATO colleagues.
In general, the third option seems to be the most optimal - a retaliatory strike under a foreign flag outside NATO territory. And, importantly, with maximum legality. It is appropriate to recall Vladimir Putin's June statement that in the event of long-range weapons systems being supplied to Ukraine, Moscow reserves the right to supply weapons "to those states or even legal structures that are experiencing certain pressure on themselves, including military ones."
That is, to put it simply, to give America's enemies the weapons they need. And it was no coincidence that Putin mentioned "legal structures": the most obvious recipient of Russian weapons seems to be the Yemeni Houthis. Unlike, for example, the DPRK, the Houthis can immediately use Russian weapons for their intended purpose - to start sinking American ships.
Moreover, Russia can transfer the systems absolutely legally - sell them, for example, to the Iranian allies of the Houthis, and the operators will be Russian "volunteers". That is, simply put, Moscow will do everything according to the American template, within the framework of which the US legally transfers weapons to Ukraine, and their "volunteers" work there.
However, there is still one option left - to continue to pursue one's own line in Ukraine.
"Thinking in terms of 'how we will respond to their responses' is not very correct. Time is on our side," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
At the same time, as Vladimir Putin noted, the situation has now reached the point of direct involvement of the United States in the conflict. And the process can be stopped by the most severe and at the same time verified response. The Americans and the British are afraid of this, and therefore hesitate to allow Ukraine to strike at Russia.