IGOR GIELOW
The American decision to authorize Ukraine to strike targets in Russia with long-range missiles may not change the course of the war, but it could have a major political impact depending on how Kiev uses the approval.
A clear example of this was given by France, whose chancellor said this Monday (18) that he is considering giving the same authorization in the case of its Scalp-EG air-to-ground cruise missiles, twins of the British Storm Shadow, both weapons that are already in the arsenal Ukrainian.
If it provides the operating version of the missile, Paris will allow its use against Moscow: the Russian capital is within the model’s 560 km range. So far, everything indicates that the French and British have only delivered, in small numbers, export versions with between 250 km and 290 km of range, which have already been used against Crimea.
In the American case, everything depends on the versions of the ATACMS, the tactical missile released according to reports in the American press by Joe Biden in the model with up to 300 km of range, the so-called Block 1A. Other variants range from 140 km to 220 km.
In its most capable version, the missile puts at risk a considerable slice of European Russia, the most inhabited and developed portion of the largest country in the world. Cities such as Smolesnk, Voronezh, Belgorodo, Kursk, Rostov-on-Don and others would be in the target.
As would be predictable, Moscow reacted to reports of Biden’s decision by reiterating threats that had previously been made by President Vladimir Putin – which, taken literally, suggest the risk of even a direct confrontation with NATO, the military alliance led by by Washington. Noting that there was no formal announcement from Biden, spokesman Dmitri Peskov accused the Democrat’s administration of “pouring gasoline on the fire and causing tension” in the war. Biden remains in office until he passes the baton to Donald Trump, seen as someone who will play against Kiev’s interests, in January.
“If such a decision was actually formulated and brought to the Kiev regime, then this is a new round of tensions, qualitatively new, and qualitatively a new situation from the point of view of US involvement in this conflict,” he said.
The change in American policy was leaked after one of the biggest Russian air strikes of the war, which took place on Sunday (17). The impact went beyond Ukrainian borders: it became a topic of debate in the discussion of the G20 declaration at the group’s meeting taking place in Rio.
The action left at least seven dead and targeted the Ukrainian energy system, which is already reeling with 2/3 of its productive capacity destroyed. After sparing missiles in repeated drone strikes, Moscow appears to have begun its offensive targeting Ukrainian morale in the winter, deploying 120 precision weapons in the attack.
This Monday (18), all regions of Ukraine were under some type of blackout scheduled to save energy. With the cold worsening in the Northern Hemisphere, heating that depends on electricity is vital.
Another 11 people died in the Sumi region in a second attack on Sunday night. This Monday, both sides exchanged actions with drones, with the Ukrainians launching 59 devices against Russia, 2 of them targeting Moscow, with no reports of damage.
Since the idea of authorization began to be circulated, and demanded almost daily by President Volodimir Zelenski, Putin reiterated the risk of a war with the West and ordered the review of his doctrine for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, supposedly dedicated to military theaters. restricted.
Until now, its deterrence, even if called a bluff by NATO, had been working. In fact, this Monday the always prudent German government reaffirmed that it will not supply long-range Taurus missiles, which can hit targets 500 km away, to Kiev.
Such division is a constant in Europe, with the belligerent Polish president, Andrzej Duda, stating this Monday that the American decision could change the game in the war.
This is not quite the case, however, as Lithuanian Chancellor Gabrielius Gandsbergis pointed out during a meeting with his counterparts in Brussels.
“I’m not opening the champagne yet, because we don’t know the real number of missiles that Ukraine has, whether they can make a difference on the battlefield,” he said.
Experts tend to say no, given the scarcity of this type of weaponry. The British-French arsenal of the weapon does not exceed a thousand missiles, of which apparently only a few dozen were given to Kiev.
But it all depends on what the Ukrainians want to do with them. Even in their lowest-range configuration, they can hit anywhere between 100 and 200 Moscow air bases in Russia, suggesting a greater military impact than usually accepted.
But the fact is that in Crimea, after some successful attacks, they were spared, either due to the extremely high cost (at least around R$6 million per unit), or due to the greater effectiveness of the air defense against the weapons.
A Ukrainian deputy, Mariia Ionova, told the BBC on Monday that the missiles “are not a silver bullet against our common enemies”.
On the ground, the Russians continue to advance in Donetsk, having taken yet another city in that eastern Ukrainian region. And in the south of Russia, fighting continues in Putin’s counteroffensive to retake Kursk, an area invaded by Zelensky in August, in what the West says is North Korea’s debut alongside Moscow in the war.
