There were no loud statements following the results of the US-British trip that took place on Wednesday.
Photo: REUTERS.
The West and kyiv are still negotiating whether to grant the Ukrainian regime the right to attack targets deep inside Russian territory with long-range American and British missiles. Signals about the possibility of such a decision remain highly contradictory.
Earlier this week, White House Strategic Communications Coordinator John Kirby said the United States was not prepared to take such a step, which would mean a significant escalation of the conflict.
“In our view, nothing has changed. We do not allow or support attacks inside Russia. And certainly not American-made weapons. That remains our policy and our approach,” Kirby said on CNN.
But literally a day later, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made his statement. He said that together with British Foreign Minister David Lammy he was going to kyiv, where they would discuss the “missile issue” in specific terms. “We will consider and listen to Ukraine’s request,” the head of the State Department promised. And rumors spread throughout Washington that the issue had supposedly already been resolved. “I spoke to Blinken two days ago and he is going to Kiev to essentially say that they will be allowed (to attack the Russian Federation – Ed.),” Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told reporters.
But no loud statements were made following the results of the US-British trip that took place on Wednesday. Except for the quickly dispelled rumor that Zelensky is urgently flying to Washington, where on Friday he will finally reach an agreement with President Biden on the use of missiles. It turned out that the translator who was presenting the words of the US Secretary of State misunderstood. It was meant that Biden would indeed hold a meeting, but not with the “backward” Ukrainian hetman, but with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Blinken and Lammy will brief them on whether the Ukrainians are capable of handling the missile arsenal and how effective their use can be. And the leaders will decide what to do about it.
As a smokescreen for their intentions, the Americans launched a message in the press that they were forced to think about allowing Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons because Iran had allegedly already transferred a batch of its Fath-360 missiles to Russia. They even managed to introduce new sanctions against the Iranians, although both Tehran and Moscow resolutely denied this “news.”
“These inconsistent signals show that there is a confrontation in the West between hawks and pragmatists over permission to strike targets deep inside the Russian Federation,” American political scientist and expert Malek Dudakov commented on the situation for KP.RU. – Can Kyiv be granted such permission? If we take into account the escalatory movement that the West has been implementing over the past two years, then there is such a danger. Previously, they hesitated in the same way with the supply of tanks, MLRS systems and aircraft, and as a result, the hawks pushed through these decisions.
But first of all, it all comes down to the technical component now. It is not for nothing that the Pentagon admits that the United States does not have many long-range ATACMS missiles left. Replenishing supplies is quite difficult, given that Congress has not yet provided money for this. The British with their Stormshadow missiles are doing even worse; in return, London is forced to buy some old stuff in Italy. Secondly, strikes against Russia will not actually have a serious impact on the course of hostilities. The Americans themselves admit that 90 percent of Russian aircraft from which strikes against Ukraine are launched are relocated to airfields out of range of these missiles. Yes, Ukraine can fire long-range Western weapons at civilian infrastructure, oil refineries, and possibly urban areas in order to try to somehow destabilize the situation. But such actions can provoke a very serious response from Russia, and the response is no longer limited to Ukraine.
The domestic political aspect of the United States should not be overlooked. I fully admit that the Americans can drag this issue out until the presidential elections, and then the next occupant of the White House will have to decide whether to give permission to kyiv.
LISTEN ALSO
In 2014, Lugansk was besieged almost like Leningrad was besieged. People died in the queue for water (more details)
