President Biden’s decision Allow Ukraine to attack inside Russia with US-supplied long-range missiles. There has been a strong reaction in Russia.
“Outgoing US President Joe Biden has taken one of the most provocative, ill-calculated decisions of his administration, which risks catastrophic consequences,” the website of Russia’s state-run newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced Monday morning.
Russian lawmaker Leonid Slutsky, head of the pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party, predicted that the decision would inevitably lead to serious tensions, with dire consequences.
Russian Senator Vladimir Zhabarov called it “an unprecedented step towards World War III”.
Anger, yes. But no real surprise.
The pro-Kremlin tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda called it “an expected addition”.
What really matters, however, is what Vladimir Putin says and how Kremlin leaders react.
He said nothing on Sunday night.
But the Russian president has said as much before.
In recent months, the Kremlin has made its message to the West clear: Don’t do it, don’t lift restrictions on the use of its long-range weapons, allowing Kiev to strike deep into Russian territory with those missiles. Don’t give.
In September, President Putin warned that Moscow would see it as such if it was allowed to happen. Direct participation of NATO countries in the war in Ukraine.
This would mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia.
The following month, the Kremlin leader announced changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine, a document that outlines the preconditions under which Moscow may decide to use nuclear weapons.
This was widely interpreted as another less subtle signal to the US and Europe not to allow Ukraine to attack Russian territory with long-range missiles.
Predicting Vladimir Putin’s next moves is never easy.
But he has left clues.
In June, at a meeting with the heads of international news agencies, Putin was asked: How would Russia react if Ukraine were given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian soil with weapons supplied by Europe? will
President Putin responded, “First of all, we will certainly improve our air defense system. We will destroy their missiles.”
“Secondly, we believe that if someone is thinking that it is possible to deliver such weapons into a war zone to attack our territory and create problems for us, then we should send our same class of weapons to those regions around the world. Why can’t they provide where they will target sensitive installations in countries that are doing this to Russia?”
In other words, arming Western adversaries to attack Western targets abroad is something Moscow is considering.
In his recent interview with Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, Putin’s close ally confirmed that the Kremlin is thinking along these lines.
Mr. Lukashenko told me that he had discussed the matter in a recent meeting with Western officials.
“I warned them, ‘Guys, be careful with those long-range missiles,'” Mr. Lukashenko told me.
“Houthi. [rebels] Putin can come and ask for a coastal weapon system that can carry out devastating attacks on ships.
“And if he retaliates for supplying you with weapons of long rage [President] Zelinsky by supplying Bastion missile systems to the Houthis? What happens if an aircraft carrier is hit? A British or American. What then?”
But some of the media reaction in Russia was designed to play things down.
“The Russian armed forces were already there. [previously] ATACMS missiles were intercepted during strikes off the coast of Crimea,” a military expert told Izvestia newspaper, suggesting that President-elect Trump may “reconsider” the decision.
This is, to put it mildly, an unusual situation.
In two months time, President Biden will be out of office and Donald Trump will be in the White House.
The Kremlin knows that President-elect Trump is more skeptical than President Biden about military aid to Ukraine.
Will this be a factor in Vladimir Putin’s calculations as he formulates Russia’s response?
