Ukraine always does what the US and its NATO partners tell it to, and this goes so far as even how it uses the western supplied so-called “defensive” weapons such as the HIMARS, ATACMS, and the Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles. When initially supplied, the war party in the west claimed that these were only to be used under restricted circumstances, or Rules of Engagement, and not for strikes on historic Russian territory (as defined by the US and EU, that is), otherwise the use of such weapons would most certainly meet the definition of a proxy war.
While this series of announcements by a number of western leaders, including the leaders of the US, France, Britain, and Germany, and “Mr. Escalation” himself, Stoltenberg, the current NATO secretary general, seem a major escalation, we can ask “What has actually changed?”
It has been apparent that the US has, in reality, allowed such attacks since the early part of the war by both weapons already in the Ukrainian arsenal such as artillery and MLRS such as the Grad and Vampire, as well as numerous drone attacks. In addition, the revelation that the Pentagon was going to assist Ukraine in targeting its strikes is nothing new, as this has been the case since the start of the conflict, with the Russians even knocking out one drone, an RQ-4 Global Hawk, by dumping fuel on it in an intercept in 2023.
These drones, along with reconnaissance flights by other US and NATO aircraft such as the EC-135 and E-3 Sentry, have been used to target strikes on Crimea, as well as over the battlefield in general.
Meanwhjile, the US claims that its permission is only for a small area around Kharkov on the Russian side of the border positively stinks of “slippery slope” syndrome, though what in this proxy war does not?
“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use US-supplied weapons for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region, so Ukraine can hit back against Russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack them,” a US official said.
“Our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of Atacms or long-range strikes inside of Russia has not changed,”
The intent is, officially, to allow the Ukrainians to target Russian artillery and troop concentrations in the Russian regions on the border, but is made rather more ominous by the statement by Mathew Miller, State Department spokesman, that almost all civilians have left Belgorod, now claimed as a “fake” by western media. The Russian response points out that over 175 civilians have been killed during repeated attacks by Ukraine on civilian infrastructure.
“[In the Belgorod Region] 18,000 apartments and houses have already been damaged or destroyed. Over 300 social facilities and about 200 industrial facilities of peaceful purpose have been damaged. Some 175 people have been killed and nearly 800 wounded,” the HRC’s Telegram channel is quoted Fadeyev.
It has been obvious since the beginning of the Ukrainian mess in 2014, let alone the Russian response in 2022, that the West has no problem with the targeting of civilians by the UAF, the question is, why are they now openly allowing the UAF to strike targets inside Russia, at great risk to civilians. These so-called “accurate weapons” have been, buy the admission of the west, reduced in effectiveness by up to 90%
Russia’s jamming of the guidance systems of modern Western weapons, including Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, which can fire some U.S.-made rockets with a range of up to 50 miles, has eroded Ukraine’s ability to use its technology and has left officials in Kyiv urgently seeking help from the Pentagon to obtain upgrades from arms manufacturers.
With such a reduction in effectiveness, we can only assume such Ukrainian strikes are, in fact, terror attacks against the civil population.
The question is why?
It is patently obvious that, due to the ongoing collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces under the ongoing onslaught of the Russian SMO forces, combined with the inability of NATO countries to supply anything like the volume of munitions that Ukraine requires, has resulted in panic amongst western leaders, especially the Democrats in the USA, who are desperate to avoid another debacle like the rout from Kabul in 2021.
Basically, the West fears Russia achieving a military breakthrough across the front lines (particularly around the Kharkov Region), so it’s now more openly allowing Ukraine to use their arms to strike targets inside its neighbor’s universally recognized territory.
Poland is also flirting with shooting down Russian missiles over Western Ukraine and commencing a conventional intervention there too. All the while, Ukraine started attacking Russia’s early nuclear warning systems, which is unprecedentedly dangerous.
The NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine is therefore poised to intensify, though the West’s intent appears to be to “escalate to de-escalate” in order to then freeze the conflict afterwards on comparatively better terms for their side, provided of course that the escalation remains manageable.
Unfortunately, nobody has asked the Russians their opinion, or is listening to them when they give it anyway. It is a simple fact, that the longer the range of the weapons that Ukraine uses to strike into Russia, the further west the Russians will push.
They also appear to be losing patience with western countries that seem to think they can aid Ukraine in attacking Russia with no consequences. This is unwise, especially given the massive superiority in long-range missiles that the Russian military enjoys, with NATO having a huge deficit in air defense systems, both SAM systems and aircraft, as a recent statement made clear
“More than two years into Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine, the air defense capabilities of NATO’s eastern flank are only at 5% of the amount seen as necessary to deter an attack”, the Financial Times (FT) reported on May 29, citing sources.
This does not bode well for NATO if the Russian government decides that the NATO claims of “non-involvement” (against all the evidence of our eyes) are no longer to be accepted.
We can see here a parallel from the US civil war, where a vastly outnumbered and outgunned Confederacy tried desperately to stop the Union juggernaut
But there is no field officer of Stonewall Jackson’s caliber at the Battle of Manassas with his dedicated and well-trained troops to hold the line now. The US’s “green light” for Ukraine to use offensive weapons against Russian targets is akin to suggesting a Gettysburg-like campaign. Such a campaign would be a desperate attempt to force a peace settlement when Ukraine knows it cannot sustain its losses, and it does not really have the backing of the West.
We know how the decisive battle of the American Civil War turned out: it didn’t go as planned, and it took 100 years for the South to recover from its defeat and reconstruction, while suffering the depredations of those waiting in the shadows like wolves, the carpet baggers, the IMF, BlackRock, and the agribusiness entities, and this modern retelling will leave more than emotional and financial scars, as is the case for many Americans to this very day
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.