There is no disputing that Ukraine would be within its rights under international law to use long-range weapons on targets within Russia. The obvious reality is that Russia already uses its own long-range weapons against Ukraine, with disastrous consequences for civilian lives and infrastructure.
The question is, whether it should. The weapons at issue are supplied by Western governments, which is why President Zelensky is seeking to obtain permission to use them inside Russia. And that is why the Russian president has declared that their use would mean that Russia would be at war with Nato. He also suggests that they could not be activated without Nato military assistance. Striking targets well inside Russia therefore, would mean a dangerous escalation in the conflict, with at least the possibility that Russia would take direct retaliation of some kind against Nato members.
The Prime Minister is meeting President Biden today and has said that the UK does not seek a confrontation with Russia while reiterating that Russia started this war and could end it at any time. This meeting is the real reason why Russia has expelled half a dozen British diplomats from Moscow on the spurious basis of espionage.
The reality is that even if Ukraine hits targets within Russia, it is very unlikely that it would end the war
Sir Keir, however, should be the voice of caution in this discussion. The reality is that even if Ukraine hits targets within Russia, it is very unlikely that it would end the war. The attacks could certainly bring the war home to the Russian people and could damage infrastructure and some military capacity, but the likelihood that it would induce President Putin to capitulate is slim. And that would be the only possible justification for the escalation.
Rather, strikes on targets deep within Russia would further change the nature of the war. For so long as it was a defensive war, with Ukraine seeking to defend its territory against unprovoked aggression, support for Ukraine in the West was firm. The recent attacks by Ukrainian forces in Kursk, in Russian territory, was certainly a change in strategy, but it could be justified on the basis that it distracted Russian troops from other parts of the line. But long-range attacks would serve no such purpose.
We do not need to speculate about the possibility that Russia would launch retaliatory strikes on Western capitals. That is very unlikely, though neighbouring states such as Poland could be more vulnerable than before. There are many other options available, which would be less catastrophic but very damaging, such as cyber or drone attacks which could, for instance, be directed at air traffic control systems or gas pipelines. Certainly Russia has previously threatened retaliation when Nato countries provided new kinds of military aid to Ukraine, from battlefield tanks to fighter jets to long-range missiles, and each time the threats came to nothing. But attacks far inside Russia would be another matter, more likely to trigger a direct response.
This is not appeasement. We should ask: would deploying long-range missiles mean that this appalling, costly war will be brought to an end sooner rather than later? And the answer is, it wouldn’t. Sir Keir should stand for prudence, and restraint.
