Do Western Powers Risk Putting Nato at War With Russia?

Joe Biden and Keir Starmer will meet in Washington today to discuss whether or not to allow Ukraine to use long-range cruise missiles (supplied by the US, UK and France) against targets deep inside Russian territory. Foreign secretary David Lammy has claimed such weapons are “crucial” to stopping Vladimir Putin and helping Ukraine win the war; the Moscow Botox enthusiast, however, has stated he would consider the use of Western-made missiles on targets in Russia an act of war by Nato. “We will take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we will face,” Putin told Russian media on Thursday.

So, why now? Last month, Kyiv launched a shock incursion into the Russian region of Kursk, penetrating nearly 20 miles from the border. The operation was a tactical success, and Ukrainian forces advanced quickly. 

But Ukraine’s lightning-offensive has come at a cost. It’s struggling to defend towns and cities in the east of the country, and has lost ground in the Donbas. It’s also facing navigation and communication difficulties in Kursk, as Elon Musk’s Starlink system has proved unreliable.

According to reports from the front lines, the operation is getting more difficult. After initially scrambling to redeploy troops and equipment, Russia has mobilised a counteroffensive (though Putin has been forced to reverse-ferret on a promise not to put conscripts on the front lines). Meanwhile, the US has claimed Russia has received a new shipment of ballistic missiles from Iran – and Kyiv has long-complained that it’s being prevented from neutralising the Russian bases from which attacks are launched at Ukrainian civilian targets.

With fears that Kursk could turn into another brutal stalemate, Washington and London hope Western-supplied cruise missiles could turn the tide against Russia.

Could this risk escalation between Nato and Russia? Though Antony Blinken and Lammy have preferred not to mention it, Putin clearly thinks it does. He claimed these cruise missiles could only be guided using satellite data supplied by Nato, and that this would represent “direct participation” in the conflict by Western powers. It would certainly make it more difficult for the West to dismiss the “proxy war” allegations they found so offensive in 2022. According to The Times, the White House has deliberately declined to allow the use of Nato-supplied ballistic missiles inside Russia, in an attempt to lessen the risk of escalation.

How much of a difference would the use of American and British cruise missiles inside Russian territory make to the Ukrainian war effort? Storm Shadow, an Anglo-French cruise missile, has already been used by the Ukrainians in Crimea. According to Justin Crump (a military analyst helpfully interviewed by the BBC), Storm Shadow has proved effective against well-protected targets.

But the drawn-out debate over whether Washington and London should allow Ukraine to use Nato-supplied weapons inside Russia could mean the Russian military has already taken precautionary measures. It may have moved key infrastructure and hardware further back from the front lines, and out of reach of Storm Shadow range. Despite this possibility, it would still present a significant obstacle to Russia bolstering its front lines in Kursk and inside Ukraine – but perhaps not the knockout blow that Lammy has been claiming.

The article was adapted from our newsletter The Cortado. For more political analysis straight into your inbox, click here.