Ukraine is closer to crossing Putin’s biggest red line yet

Ukraine is now allowed to use U.S. weapons to hit Russian territory but what are the consequences of Washington’s latest green light with regards Vladimir Putin‘s red line?

Kyiv’s pleas with the U.S. to use its weaponry inside Russia grew over the last month as Moscow’s troops made gains in Kharkiv and Ukraine could not stop missiles from targeting its northeast region.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken‘s comment that Washington’s has had “to adapt and adjust” to the war reflects its stance of more incremental military assistance for Ukraine.

U.S. donations of Javelin and Stinger missiles have graduated to HIMARS rocket launchers, M1 Abrams tanks and, soon, American-made F-16 jets will be supplied by other countries. Long-range strikes, including from ground-launched ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) remain off the table for Ukraine—a sign that the Biden administration is still wary of avoiding escalation.

The Kremlin, which has framed the invasion as a proxy conflict between Russia and NATO, has referred to red lines over the course of the conflict, going as far as suggesting nuclear action if there was an existential threat to the state, though this has been undefined.

So far, Putin has not followed through militarily on promises to punish the West for its support of Ukraine but whether this will remain the case and what his red lines are remain uncertain, especially given his announcement in May of nuclear weapon drills. Newsweek has contacted the Kremlin for comment.

“There will be a point for Russia where real red lines will be crossed and then of course, they’re going to take relevant countermeasures,” said Nicolò Fasola, author of the book releasing in July Reinterpreting Russia’s Strategic Culture: The Russian Way of War, told Newsweek. “It potentially has strategic implications in that it could be seen by Russia as a considerable step up in escalation.”

“Russia could decide to conduct a different set of strikes across different targets and potentially they could once again go for targeting Ukrainian assets on Polish territory,” he said. “Or they could go for the demonstration use of tactical nuclear weapons.”

The Threat of Retaliation

However, Fasola, a research fellow at the University of Bologna, said the Russians “are scared as we are of escalation,” which is why Western fears about Russian escalation “have not proven correct over the last couple of years.”

On May 23, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow would retaliate with strikes on U.K. targets if British weapons are used by Ukraine to strike Russian territory.

Matthew Hoh, associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN) which emphasizes peace and diplomacy in American foreign policy, said this threat could also hold true for weapons from the U.S.

“What this means are strikes against facilities in Ukraine, where NATO troops may be training Ukrainian troops or assisting with Ukrainian command functions,” he told Newsweek.

“It may mean shooting down NATO reconnaissance aircraft and drones, it may mean destroying NATO logistics vehicles that have been reported to be bringing weapons and material into Ukraine.”

Hoh, a retired U.S. Marine Corps captain, who briefed the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) in March of the escalatory dangers of the war in Ukraine, said: “The great danger is what if these weapons from the West strike a civilian target, say a school full of Russian children, what then would Russia’s response be?”

“I don’t think Russia will go so far as to attack Western military targets outside of Ukraine,” he said. “I don’t think the Russians want that kind of escalation, but for the extremely small benefits that these weapons will provide, the risks are simply too great.”

Analysis of Kremlin messages by independent Russian outlet Agentstvo in October 2023 found that over the previous month, the Russian authorities had practically stopped using the phrases “red lines” and “strikes on decision-making centers” regarding threats to the West and Ukraine.

“Seeing that Putin considers Crimea to be formal Russian territory, Putin’s red line has already been crossed,” said Zev Faintuch, senior intelligence analyst at security firm Global Guardian, referring to the repeated Ukrainian strikes at targets on the peninsula occupied since 2014.

“The target sets currently being struck in Crimea will be analogous to those in Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk and other neighboring regions,” he told Newsweek. “What can Moscow really do other than more of the same?” These Russian regions by the border have been subject to strikes on military facilities, for which Kyiv does not directly claim responsibility.

Faintuch said that the spate of unexplained fires at sites across NATO countries which Moscow has been blamed for shows what sabotage Russia is prepared to carry out.

“We already have seen Russia drill the use of tactical nuclear weapons. It’s unlikely that Russia will lash out kinetically at a NATO country in a conventional and, more importantly, attributable fashion.”

Heavy Glide Bombs

Washington’s policy shift means Ukraine can target Russian troops and command and control elements, artillery, logistics, air defense units and potentially combat aircraft on Russian territory near Kharkiv.

“What has really tipped the balance has been Russia’s introduction of heavy glide bombs into the mix,” said Faintuch.

“They are cheap, plentiful, and nearly impossible to shoot down once they’re dropped. The only real way to stop these attacks is to take out the bombers in the sky, or better yet, while they are still on the ground” and this is where the Western kit will help.

“Ukraine needs to hit where these bombs are being staged inside of Russian territory. Fighter jets will be a boon for this imperative,” Faintuch added.

Before the U.S. policy change, NATO allies such as Poland, Germany and France had already said it was fine for Kyiv to use their weapons to hit Russia. Roger Hilton, defense research fellow at the Slovakia-based think tank GLOBSEC said the Biden administration’s decision was driven by the fragile security situation in Kharkiv.

“Failure to change policy would have demanded the deployment of scarce manpower and risked unnecessary losses for Kyiv that would be costly to reverse,” he told Newsweek.

NATO allies shifting course was a complementary feature, “but not a decisive one given Washington’s long-standing commitment to avoid sparking World War Three,” he said. “It should be expected that as the war drags on, European nations will continue to outpace America when it comes to implementing fraught policy decisions that risk provoking Russia.”