In what observers have called an escalatory move, on 19 September, the EU Parliament voted for a resolution calling on member states to let Ukraine use their weapons to strike deep into Russia. The resolution was supported by 425 MPs, with 131 opposed and 63 abstentions, and it lets member lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of their weapons against “legitimate military targets” in Russia, arguing that the restrictions hinder Ukraine’s ability to fully exercise its right to self-defence. 

The vote took place soon after senior Ukrainian officials pressed US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, during their joint visit to Kyiv on 11 September, to allow Ukraine to fire US-made ATACMS missiles and British-made Storm Shadow missiles at targets inside Russia. Both are long-range missiles, with ranges of up to 250-300 kilometres. 

The EU Parliament’s resolution prompted Ukraine to pass a bill, signed into law by President Zelensky on 21 September, to raise military spending by around $12 billion. The increase is to be financed by loans, taxes, and higher excise duties on tobacco and fuel, and it will be used to pay allowances to frontline soldiers this month.

Deeper strikes into Russia using Western weapons will aggravate the Ukraine crisis, pushing prospects for a solution further out of reach and intensifying tensions between Moscow and the West. Russian officials have already voiced their anger at the Western powers’ provision of advanced weaponry and intelligence to Kyiv. The US and other NATO members have repeatedly overstepped previously declared “red lines” in their attempts to reverse the course of the war and enable Ukraine to hold out against Russian advances. But unlike the sophisticated “game-changing” tanks that Western powers initially balked at giving to Ukraine, the ATACMS and Storm Shadows introduce a new dynamic because they cannot be used without US/NATO expertise and guidance systems. 

Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed this out in an interview with Russian media on 13 September. Unlike the military drones that Ukraine has already been using to strike inside Russia, including in the vicinity of Moscow, “only NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems,” he said. So, the question of whether to let Ukraine use these missiles to strike Russia is actually “about deciding whether NATO countries will become directly involved in the military conflict or not.” Their direct involvement, he added, “will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically. This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”

Putin has reiterated his country’s security doctrine, especially concerning its possible recourse to nuclear weapons, on several occasions, one being in March. It is a deterrent policy that states that Russia would be prepared to use its nuclear weapons in the event of an enemy using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies or attacking using conventional weapons in a manner that threatens the existence, sovereignty or independence of the Russian state. 

Vyacheslav Volodin, chairman of the Duma, the lower house of parliament, maintains that NATO countries are already active in the war in Ukraine. In response to reports of NATO members’ discussions on the possibility of letting Ukraine use their weapons to strike Russia, he said that Russia would be compelled to use “more powerful and destructive weapons” against Ukraine if it received the go-ahead. 

How might Russia respond in reality? Initially, according to some analysts, Russia might target strategic Western interests in Asia, such as US and European naval bases or, in the event of a strike, it might launch retaliatory strikes against some of those Eastern European countries that have been hawkish in their support for the NATO vision for managing the Ukraine crisis. Alternatively, it might even consider some pre-emptive strikes as an act of defiance to refresh the domestic image of the ruling regime, which has been flagging against the backdrop of the protracted war and deteriorating economic indicators. In addition, Moscow has recently experienced major terrorist operations for the first time in years.

The EU Parliament’s resolution may run up against obstacles to its implementation. Foremost among those are concerns over the potential repercussions. Zelensky suggests as much in a statement on 21 September in which he indicated that Kyiv has not yet received permission from Washington and London to use their long-range missiles against Russia due to fears of escalation. He stressed that his country would not use these missiles against Russia without a green light from Washington and London.

NATO, in general, has been careful to avert escalation with Moscow, even as it moves to expand and build up its presence along Russia’s borders. Contrary to its tough anti-Russian rhetoric, NATO is keen to avert a scenario in which a direct clash could spiral into a showdown, with incalculable potential consequences for Western national security. 

But aside from such dire scenarios, some military experts doubt whether Ukraine’s use of NATO weapons against targets inside Russia would ultimately reverse the course of the war. It may complicate matters for Moscow, but Russia still possesses powerful air defences and the military wherewithal to continue to wear down Ukraine in what is effectively a war of attrition. 

Of course, the question remains as to whether NATO leaders will continue to heed caution and avoid provoking Moscow.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 26 September, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly