At which targets is Ukraine allowed to point its missiles?

Will the US and UK allow Ukraine to attack military targets in Russia with Western missiles? After a joint visit to Kyiv by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, there are increasing signs of this. US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer are meeting in Washington DC today to discuss the issue. Europe's press looks at what is at stake.

Respond to a dangerous coalition

The delivery of Iranian missiles to Russia changes the situation, says La Croix, France:

“Iran's military support for Russia, which complements that of North Korea, could change the perception of the conflict. The war in Ukraine is no longer purely European. Russia is gradually forming a coalition – which Moscow also wants to include Beijing, which has so far refused any military support. The members of this coalition have the declared goal of destabilizing their environment and the basic rules of international coexistence by aggressive means. The conflict is thus expanding beyond its borders. This must prompt the West to reassess the risks of Russian aggression and its policy of support for Ukraine – including the setting of red lines.”

The West reacts instead of proactively

Political scientist Volodymyr Fessenko comments in the Ukrainian NV:

“The United States and our other Western partners must now respond to Iran's delivery of ballistic missiles to Russia. This is the pattern of behavior of our Western partners in this war. … As a rule, they do not act proactively, but react to escalations by Russia. In my opinion, this is not the best strategy, but at least it fulfills the minimum task of maintaining Ukraine's relative combat capability.”

End the restrictions now

The British Spectator takes a clear stance on this:

“The fear of nuclear escalation is a chimera, either falsely believed by Western politicians or a convenient excuse for inaction. … Ukraine faces an existential threat. If Vladimir Putin wins this war, we know he will virtually wipe out Ukraine as a state, nation and people. We have the opportunity to help our allies in their time of need. … It is outrageous that we presume to give Ukraine instructions on how to fight a war of survival. Our friends in Kyiv are specifically asking us for something we can so easily give. End the restrictions, and end them immediately.”

Caution is not cowardice, but your duty

The Tages-Anzeiger, Switzerland, writes:

“On the one hand, despite all the warnings against escalation, Russia has so far accepted any increase in the quantity and quality of weapons supplied by the West. Ukraine is now fighting with jets, tanks, artillery and grenades, all of which were supplied by NATO countries. On the other hand, the absence of escalation in the past is no guarantee that there will not be one in the future. When Western politicians ponder how to prevent the war in Ukraine from becoming World War III, this is neither stupidity nor cowardice, they are just doing their job.”

Italy vulnerable to Russian propaganda

Pina Picierno, Vice-President of the European Parliament, criticises Italy’s stance in La Repubblica:

“Europe, which was able to respond in a united manner to Russia's massive aggression against Ukraine and is aware that much is at stake for all of us, continues to strongly support the resistance of the Ukrainian people. But this is not the case in our country, where doubts are strong, fed by very powerful Russian propaganda. … The refusal to authorise the use of Italian weapons on Russian territory is a message of concession to the war criminal Vladimir Putin and his government. In this sense, I consider the attitude of the Italian government and my party, the PD, to be a mistake.”

In exchange for a concrete plan

The Moscow radio station Radio Kommersant FM sees a connection between the authorization to use Western weapons and signals from Kiev indicating a willingness to negotiate:

“Zelensky is now proposing to abandon the usual term 'peaceful' or 'peace formula' and replace it with the term 'victory plan'. … What does this have to do with Western missiles and permission to launch them deep into Russian territory? Apparently it's a package deal: we give you the green light and you give us a clear peace plan. You can call it a 'victory plan' or whatever you want, but we (the allies) want to know what you (Ukraine) actually want to achieve and how you plan to go about it. The 1991 borders seem utopian today. That means something has to be given up.”

Reprinted from Eurotopics. The original can be found here.