Last week, tensions between Russia and the West appeared to have escalated to a dangerous new level after President Vladimir Putin ordered a military drill using tactical nuclear weapons near the Ukrainian border. The Kremlin said the drills were in response to statements by Western leaders about the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine and the use of Western weapons to attack targets inside Russia.
On May 2, in a surprise visit to Kiev, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron pledged to continue supporting Ukraine “for as long as necessary” and warned that Ukrainians were free to use British weapons to attack Russian territory. suggested that it could be done. This could involve the joint Franco-British Storm Shadow missile, as well as the drones that Britain has promised to supply Ukraine with in the thousands.
Western countries have supplied weapons to Ukraine, but have made it clear that they cannot be used to attack mainland Russia. For this reason, Ukraine has traditionally used its own drones and missiles against civilian and military targets inside Russia.
French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly suggested that NATO may eventually send troops to Ukraine. The French president reiterated this earlier this month in an interview with The Economist published on May 2nd. The French president refused to provide further details, insisting that the European Union should maintain “strategic ambiguity” and let the Russian side guess its true intentions.
But the Kremlin chose not to play the guessing game. The announcement of military exercises using tactical nuclear weapons in the Southern Military District, which borders Ukraine, sends a clear message to the West.
And to clarify this point, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the British and French ambassadors and published details of the reprimands they received.
In a letter to France, it simply condemned Macron's comments as “provocative” and “destructive.” The statement addressed to Britain was even harsher. By allowing Ukraine to use its weapons against targets in Russia, Britain claimed it would become a side in the conflict. The ambassador was warned that if Ukraine went ahead with an attack using British weapons, Russia could attack British targets “in and outside Ukraine.”
This is the first direct threat of attack against NATO targets outside Ukraine since Russia launched a full-scale invasion in 2022. However, this was not the first time Russia had threatened Britain in the context of this conflict.
Back in the summer of 2021, the Russian Navy fired warning shots when the British warship Defender entered what Russia considers territorial waters off the coast of Crimea. They also threatened to bomb any British ships that attempted to attack them again. This episode served as an important precursor to the invasion of Russia.
Several factors must have contributed to the current escalation of the situation. In the UK case, domestic considerations came into play. The unpopular Conservative government is almost certain to be defeated in the next national election, with foreign affairs becoming one of the last straws for the party to hold on.
“Tough on Russia” means Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been Ukraine's most ardent supporter as he tries to save his post amid coronavirus-related party scandals at home, and is reluctant to agree to any deal with Russia. has become its trademark since the days when it emerged as a dissident. Prime Minister Cameron's visit came on the day of the UK's local elections. However, his stance in Kiev did not help his party avoid a crushing defeat.
But, of course, there is more important than domestic politics. Western leaders generally tend to adjust their statements and actions regarding this conflict. European leaders, particularly the United Kingdom, also tend to take on the role of “bad cop” in dealing with Russia in order to make the Biden administration appear more restrained and reasonable.
Western capitals are clearly concerned, partly because of the battlefield situation. Over the past few months, Russian forces have made steady advances, recently expanding their front line by dozens of kilometers and attacking Ukraine from the north of the Kharkov region.
It continues to search for a magical solution to turn the tide in Ukraine's favor, but so far in vain. At best, a significant U.S. aid package, finally approved by Congress in April, will stall the Russian offensive at some point later this year. However, Russian forces are likely to capture more territory before that happens.
What Ukraine can realistically accomplish is to try to make Russian advances more expensive by using Western missiles to carry out more painful and longer-range attacks. The bridge connecting mainland Russia to occupied Crimea is often cited as one of the most valuable objectives.
The Ukrainians would also be very keen to target more infrastructure inside Russia, if only in retaliation for Russia's constant attacks that have devastated Ukraine's energy sector.
Western powers want to keep these options on the table to keep Russia in check and make it think twice before launching a major operation that would have devastating consequences for Ukraine's defense.
Russia, on the other hand, wants to appear unflinchingly committed to achieving its goals in Ukraine, no matter the cost. Ultimately, Russia's calculations are that Ukraine will be far less important to the West than Moscow.
In what may be the most decisive moment of the war, both sides are trying to set the rules of the game and, at the very least, draw lines that their adversaries will balk at. cross.
However, with nuclear weapons being demonstrably deployed, it is becoming clear that brinkmanship is approaching its natural limits. Most, if not all, of the trump cards are on the table, and the contours of a new equilibrium are becoming clearer, making peace negotiations more likely.
Putin again gave a bellicose speech at the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9, which also included the recently reprimanded French ambassador and a boycott imposed by other major Western powers. defeated. Diplomatic efforts to end the war continue behind harsh rhetoric and threats.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
