"We Have Our Own Calculations on What We Decide to Provide or Not to Ukraine," Warns the US

The possibility that the West might authorize the use of its long-range missiles on Russian territory remains shrouded in secrecy. Neither US President Joe Biden nor British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have provided any concrete details following their meeting at the White House on Friday (early Saturday morning in Spain). It is speculated that they either made a positive decision that will unfold without public announcement in the coming weeks or that US caution about not taking steps that could lead to direct confrontation with Russia prevails.

Statements from US National Security spokesperson John Kirby at the end of the meeting are telling. "We have our own calculations on what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what we do not," he specified, emphasizing that Washington's opposition to allowing Kyiv to fire its most powerful rockets into Russia has not budged an inch. For his part, the British Prime Minister stated on Saturday that the meeting was "very productive" and that both countries "have reached a strong position," though he did not specify in what sense.

Expectations for the US-UK meeting had already cooled before the event itself, as sources from both administrations had indicated there would be no concrete resolution. Speculation that this conclave would lift restrictions on Ukraine began on Tuesday with Biden himself, who commented that Washington and its allies were working on ways to increase the offensive power of the former Soviet republic.

From Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky also fueled this hypothesis, and sources from the British government added their dose by indicating that Starmer traveled to Washington to ask the US leader to allow Ukrainians to fire their Storm Shadow missiles at Russia. In fact, it is also unclear whether the subsequent silence is merely a smoke screen. The British Prime Minister has indicated that "the coming weeks and months could be crucial, very, very important, for us to support Ukraine in this vital war for freedom."

One possibility being considered is that the United States might authorize Ukrainian attacks in deeper areas of Russia than currently permitted by using British and French long-range missiles. By not using American-made munitions per se – although European projectiles do incorporate parts or licenses 'made in USA' – the White House interprets that the Kremlin would not consider it a direct aggression from its part.

So far, Kyiv can only operate short-range missiles within the Russian strip where attacks against Ukrainian territory are orchestrated as a form of legitimate defense. Long-range rockets, however, can penetrate up to 200 and 300 kilometers into territory, which for the Kremlin constitutes an all-out aggression against the entire country. Additionally, this type of ammunition requires Western operators and satellites to guide it toward distant targets.

Against US reticence or countries like Germany or France – which, as reflected by 'Le Monde' this Saturday, has begun cultivating marked ambiguity – President Zelensky maintains that deep attacks are the only way to reach Russian bombers capable of covering long distances or dropping bombs on Ukraine from locations out of reach of anti-aircraft defenses. Zelensky urges the US and NATO allies because he believes that as more time passes, the Russian government can move its air bases further inside the country.

However, it is a very high-risk bet. Russian leader Vladimir Putin has already warned against such a maneuver, and Ambassador Vasily Nebenzia insisted before the UN Security Council this Friday. He stressed that using Western weaponry inside his country would mean "NATO becomes a direct part of hostilities against a nuclear power." "One must not forget this and think about the consequences," Nebenzia added.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated this Saturday that there is an increasingly widespread belief in Moscow that Ukraine will soon start attacking with more advanced Western weaponry because Kyiv "has been given carte blanche and all indulgences," but warned that Washington and London underestimate the risk.

"I Don't Think About Putin"

Asked by a journalist after his meeting ended, Joe Biden dismissed Moscow's threats with "I simply don't usually think about Putin." However, his National Security Advisor's statements are quite different. Kirby explained that the Pentagon takes Putin's warnings very seriously because it knows his capacity for escalation in confrontation. Biden measures all his steps because his priority is to avoid any decision leading to an aggressive response from Russia and ending in "a third world war." Moreover, he has a personal concern: he has barely four months left in office and does not want to leave such a complex and deep conflict as a legacy for his successor.

Aside from these concerns, the United States looks at its arsenal and calculates risks. Many military personnel and strategists at the Pentagon believe missile reserves – not just their own but also those of Britain and other allies – are insufficient to change the course of the war even by striking closer to Russia's heart. The Department of Defense has already warned the White House that it cannot send all its material to Ukraine, especially given existing instability in the Middle East or Asia.

The latest reports from the war-torn region are not as hopeful as possible: bombings no longer cause as much damage across the border because the Kremlin has begun shielding or relocating its main interests. Additionally, the Russian army has initiated a counterattack in Kursk and this week has evicted Ukrainian forces from a dozen conquered towns. The Russian government appears relatively euphoric, although Zelensky has assured these small defeats are already accounted for in their plans and other international analysts downplay their importance. In any case, Zelensky's presidential advisor Andriy Yermak urged today for firm decisions from both US and NATO: "Terrorism can be stopped by destroying military installations where it originates."

What seems clear is that nuclear fear is back at center stage in a war nearing its third year of existence. One of those most adept at stoking it is former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now second-in-command at the National Security Council. He issued a message stating his country’s "patience is running out" and accused Ukraine of providing arguments for Kremlin to resort to its nuclear or unconventional arsenal; if so, Kyiv would end up as "a giant gray melted stain."

In this context, an interview published Saturday in 'KP' with academic Alexey Arbato draws attention. Considered one of the top specialists in arms control, he heads the International Security Department at Moscow’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations. In his view, current warfare will force reforming atomic doctrine because drone bombings, Ukrainian incursions into Kursk or merely allowing Kyiv to fire Western long-range missiles represent examples of how traditional nuclear deterrence policy is no longer reliable coverage.

"All this was unthinkable four years ago," Arbato argues in 'Pravda,' although he remains convinced nuclear threat still holds significant intimidation power over "Ukraine and West; they are very afraid." Otherwise, he says Ukraine would have long been allowed using long-range missiles deep into our territory."

The academic feels deep unease over potential unpredictability in making major military decisions like utilizing more powerful projectiles in Ukraine war: "You cannot start a chess game knowing only your first move because results will be disastrous." He warns West should not trust presumed obsolescence of Russian atomic material as sometimes divulged strategically: "Only part" of arsenal "is enough destroying all potential opponents." Asked whether he ever considered building an anti-nuclear bunker himself? His answer is clear: "Absolutely not; I don’t want living after an exchange nuclear strikes."