The Kremlin has responded with predictable theatre to comments by Foreign Secretary David Cameron after he said Ukraine was free to use weapons supplied by Britain to strike Russia, writes "Chatham House" and "Independent".
This theatre was both diplomatic, with the British ambassador summoned to the Foreign Office in Russia on Monday to warn of retaliation, and nuclear: Moscow has announced that it will hold tactical nuclear weapons exercises in the near future to remind the world once again that it has them.
The UK’s position stands in stark contrast to that of the US, which has consistently prohibited Ukraine from using the weapons it supplies to strike targets in Russia. The US has even dissuaded Kiev from doing so, using its own capabilities.
Deployment in Ukraine
The UK has repeatedly taken the lead in supplying weapons systems such as long-range missiles or main battle tanks to Ukraine. In the process, fears of "escalation" in Washington and Berlin stem from a highly successful Russian ploy.
But the UK’s moral authority has been shaken in recent months by its reluctance to rearm its own armed forces in the way it is urging other European countries to do so: grandiose announcements of defence investment have proved inadequate on closer inspection.
Cameron also suggested that Britain’s long-term commitment to support Ukraine would now be largely financial, as "we’ve just really exhausted everything we can in terms of providing equipment".
And unfortunately, he immediately undermined even that commitment by once again ruling out the presence of Western troops in Ukraine.
French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly warned that European troops could be forced to intervene if Ukraine fails to stop Russia’s aggression. It is vital that Russia understands this, because the last thing Moscow wants is a direct military confrontation with NATO countries.
Yet other European leaders have reacted with horror to the proposal. "I don't think it's right for NATO soldiers to kill Russian soldiers," Cameron said at the end of his visit to Ukraine. That may be true today, but as Russia's ambitions become more apparent, it serves as a reminder that NATO's goal should be to stop Russian soldiers from being where they have no right to be.
In any case, publicly rejecting the presence of Western troops in Ukraine makes no sense, regardless of whether it is a realistic proposition for some NATO countries. This possibility alone is one of the Kremlin’s greatest fears.
When Cameron and others publicly rule out this option, all it does is reassure Putin that he can continue the war with far less concern about the possible consequences.
Instead, more European leaders – and the UK – should follow Macron’s example and maintain “strategic ambiguity” (i.e., not telling your adversary what you will not do).
Russia steps up aggression
Over the past two weeks, Europe as a whole has woken up to the campaign of sabotage and disruption that Russia is waging across the continent. There is no doubt that Russia could step this up even further. Moscow’s war against the West is now barely concealed, and until the West reacts, there are few obstacles to Russia’s ability to wage it.
The use of an extended network of proxies means that the Kremlin’s intelligence chiefs will not have to worry too much about being caught red-handed. The crooks and fraudsters they hire abroad will be considered even more expendable than their own personnel. And since Russia is already openly acting as a rogue state, there is no reason to worry about damaging its reputation or relations.
The West should expect proxy attacks on the UK and across Europe to continue. In addition to disrupting support for Ukraine, they have another useful purpose for Moscow. Whether they succeed or not, they are useful for gathering information about a country’s will and capacity to prevent and respond to sabotage.
There is a traditional way to hurt the West that Russia may not have yet used. During the Cold War and even in Tsarist times, Moscow invested effort and resources in sponsoring terrorist groups to carry out attacks on European cities. That would be a more indiscriminate campaign of violence than the targeting of European logistics and supporters of Ukraine that we are seeing now. It would also have a much greater impact.
Europe should not be just a passive victim. Earlier this year, we wrote about the West’s underutilized ability to influence Russia’s choices.
The UK made its Storm Shadow deliveries a clear consequence of specific Russian actions. Now, the US appears to have done the same with its long-awaited delivery of longer-range ATACM missiles.
To no one, except perhaps in the White House, it is a surprise that the sky has not fallen.
Britain’s explicit approval of strikes against Russia could also be seen as a consequence of Russia’s attacks on Europe and a promise that more would follow. Moreover, the explicit authorization of Ukraine to strike Russia with British weapons as well as its own opens up other avenues for targeting Russia’s ability to wage war.
Ukraine has already struck Russian sites where drones and missiles used to kill its own innocent civilians are stored. It has also begun strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. These limited, pinpoint strikes stand in stark contrast to Russia’s ongoing campaign of indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian cities.
But with further attacks, Ukraine could help Europe, rather than the other way around. European countries can do little about Russian electronic warfare systems that are wreaking havoc on European air and sea traffic. But for Ukraine, no interceptions should be prohibited, and it is in everyone’s interest that the jamming be halted or stopped.
When considering how far the West should go in its dealings with Kiev, the fundamental question remains the same: does Europe want to stop Russia in Ukraine or allow Moscow’s expansive war to claim more victims further west?
Simple morality and practical common sense have always been arguments for the maximum possible support for Kiev. Britain’s endorsement of Ukraine’s right to defend itself is a long-overdue step in the right direction.