What targets can Ukraine aim its missiles at?
Ukraine is urging the US and UK to allow it to use long-range missiles to attack military targets inside Russia. A meeting last week between US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer failed to produce a change of course on the issue. In the meantime, Vladimir Putin has warned that the use of Western long-range weapons would put his country "at war" with Nato. Europe’s press discusses what is at stake.
React to a dangerous coalition
The delivery of Iranian missiles to Russia changes the situation, says La Croix:
“Iran’s military support for Russia, which complements that of North Korea, could change the perception of the conflict. The Ukraine war is no longer purely European. Russia is gradually forming a coalition — which Moscow wants Beijing, which has so far refused to provide military assistance to join. The members of this coalition are pursuing the declared goal of destabilising their environment and the basic rules of international coexistence through aggressive means. The conflict is thus spreading beyond its borders. This must prompt the West to reassess the risks posed by Russian aggression and its support policy for Ukraine — including the defining of red lines.”
West reactive instead of proactive
Political scientist Volodymyr Fessenko comments in NV:
“The US and our other Western partners must now respond to Iran’s delivery of ballistic missiles to Russia. That is our Western partners’ pattern of behaviour in this war. ... As a rule, they are not acting proactively but reacting to escalations by Russia. In my opinion this is not the best strategy, but at least it fulfils the minimum task of maintaining Ukraine’s relative combat capability.”
End the restrictions now
The Spectator adopts a clear stance:
“Fear of nuclear escalation is a chimaera, either genuinely but mistakenly believed by Western policy makers or a convenient excuse for inaction. ... Ukraine faces an existential threat. If Vladimir Putin wins this war, we know that he will effectively erase Ukraine as a state, a nation and a people. We have the opportunity to help our allies in their time of desperate need. ... It is outrageous for us to presume to instruct Ukraine on how to fight a war of survival. Our friends in Kyiv are asking us explicitly for something which we can so easily give. End the restrictions, and end them now.”
Caution isn’t cowardice, it’s their duty
The Tages-Anzeiger puts in:
“On the one hand, despite all warnings of an escalation, Russia has so far accepted every increase in the quantity and quality of weapons supplied by the West. Ukraine is now fighting with jets, tanks, artillery and grenades which have all been supplied by Nato countries. On the other hand, the absence of an escalation in the past is still no guarantee that there will be none in the future. When Western politicians mull over how to prevent the war in Ukraine from becoming World War III, it’s neither foolishness nor cowardice, they’re just doing their job.”
Italy susceptible to Russian propaganda
Pina Picierno, vice-president of the European Parliament, criticises Italy’s attitude in La Repubblica:
“Europe, which was able to react in unison to Russia’s massive aggression against Ukraine, well aware that a great deal is at stake for all of us, continues to strongly support the resistance of the Ukrainian people. However, this is not the case in our country, where doubts are rife, fuelled by very powerful Russian propaganda. ... Refusing to authorise the use of Italian weapons on Russian territory sends an accomodating message to war criminal Vladimir Putin and his government. In this sense I believe that the position adopted by the Italian government and my party, the PD, is a mistake.”
In exchange for a concrete plan
Moscow-based Radio Kommersant FM sees a connection between the authorisation to use Western weapons and signals from Kyiv indicating a willingness to negotiate:
“Zelensky now proposes to dispense with the usual term ‘peaceful’ or ‘peace formula’ and replace it with the term ‘victory plan’. ... What does this have to do with the Western missiles and the permission to fire them deep into Russian territory? Apparently it’s a package: we give you the go-ahead and you give us a clear peace plan. You can call it a ‘victory plan’ or whatever you like, but we (the allies) want to know what you (Ukraine) actually want to achieve, and how you plan to go about it. The 1991 borders seem utopian today. That means something has to be given up.”
