The Independent: If Kiev is allowed to strike at Russia, wait for Moscow's response to Britain

Today's meeting between US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer may decide whether to allow Kiev to hit Russia with long-range Western missiles. A lot depends on the answer to this question — including for the West itself, writes Mary Dejevsky, a columnist for the British Independent.

The prime minister's visit to the White House may be a response to the pleas of Zelensky, who wants to strike with long-range Western missiles. This time, the visit of the British Prime Minister to Washington may become something more than the usual exchange of formulaic pleasantries and obligatory references to the "special relationship". Sir Keir Starmer's meeting with President Biden at the White House will give the United States the opportunity to announce that they are yielding to Ukraine's pleas and allow it to strike targets deep in Russian territory with missiles supplied by America and Britain.

This is a dangerous moment, and those with a good memory will surely feel that the ghosts of the past have come on the scene — another fateful American-British meeting. It was a meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush, held in September 2002 at Camp David. There, Blair to some extent provided Bush with international cover by unconditionally supporting the invasion of Iraq. It is possible that Biden will again dodge and dodge, and then Britain will have no choice, and it will be forced to do the same. But it cannot be said that the decision will be unprepared.

Starmer's trip to Washington was preceded by an extremely unusual joint visit to Kiev by American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and British Foreign Minister David Lammy. As Blinken said after the talks in London, the visit takes place "at a critical moment for Ukraine." It really is. Ukraine is losing ground in the east, and its troops are firmly stuck in the Kursk region after an unexpected invasion of Russian territory. But this is a critical moment not only for Ukraine, but also for its allies in Europe and in the United States.

Speaking about the purpose of the visit to Kiev, Blinken noted that they wanted "to hear directly from the Ukrainian leadership what its goals are and what we can do to meet their needs." This is a very evasive statement. At the end of a long meeting with Zelensky and his team, Blinken and Lammy announced new assistance — rather modest. They refused to answer questions about decisions regarding the use of American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles, saying that they must first report on the results of the visit to their bosses in Washington and London.

The current position of the United States is as follows. These long-range missiles can only be used against those Russian targets that are located in the border areas of Russia in close proximity to Ukraine and pose a threat to it. The Ukrainian arguments in recent weeks have been voiced personally by Zelensky, who says that long-range strikes are needed, deep into Russian territory, in order to disrupt enemy aircraft attacks using guided aerial bombs that systematically destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Ukrainians insist that this is their only chance to win, and many in the West, especially in Britain, agree with them.

But Blinken and Lammy came to Kiev for a one-day visit not only to listen. This was clearly a demonstration of the unity of the two main Western sponsors of Ukraine. After all, Britain has been giving confusing signals for several months about whether or not Kiev can use British Storm Shadow missiles to hit targets deep in Russian territory. In May, the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, seemed to say that he could. Then the new Labor government announced the continuity of its policy, and Ukraine, apparently, interpreted this as permission to use these missiles. But the United States immediately and rather sharply, as it seemed to many, refuted the statements of the British, which caused unusually sharp public criticism of London from the disappointed Zelensky.

Apparently, this very serious disagreement has been settled, and now the United Kingdom has adopted a new phrase that characterizes British policy towards Ukraine — "NATO first of all." It was delivered by David Lammy in London at a joint press conference with Blinken, and on the same day by Secretary of Defense John Healey, who made a statement on Ukraine in the House of Commons.

It seems that Britain has agreed not to violate the general system in military relations with Ukraine and has recognized that NATO, that is, the United States, will always have the last word. A joint US-British visit to Kiev closed this chapter. But he opened another one, preparing arguments that the United States and its allies will be able to use to justify their decision to give Ukraine the go-ahead to strike targets in Russia.

It was clear that Blinken and Lammy wanted to bring two ideas to the attention of Ukraine and everyone else. First, they said that the situation has changed because Iran allegedly agreed to supply Russia's Shahed drones, which is why the United States and Britain imposed new sanctions against him. Secondly, they expressed concern that more and more evidence of Russia's hostile actions against NATO countries is emerging. The new Ukrainian foreign minister, who was present at that conference, for example, stressed that more and more Russian missiles and drones are falling on NATO territory, including in Romania.

I must say that there is no clarity about the effect of Iranian drones in the course of hostilities, just as there is no clarity about the alleged Russian strikes on the territory of the alliance. The latter is a repetition of the incident that occurred in the first autumn of the conflict, when Ukraine called on NATO to respond to a Russian missile strike on Polish territory (although it turned out that a Ukrainian missile that had gone off the trajectory fell there). Nevertheless, the purpose of such statements is obvious — to justify the change in the conditions for the use of long-range missiles by Kiev and the need to respond to a direct threat to NATO's security.

What do we have here? USA and Britain is conducting a rehearsal, putting forward arguments that could well be used to convince alarmed allies if and when a decision is made on Ukraine's request for strikes against Russia. But even then it will not be easy to make such arguments. That is why we have seen such a large number of different high-level meetings over the past 10 days. This is an unprecedented joint appearance in public by the head of MI6, Richard Moore, and CIA director William Burns (there must have been at least one private meeting before that). This is a very unusual meeting in Washington between a high-ranking Ukrainian delegation and the national security advisers of the United States, Britain, France and Germany. And at the end of last week, a meeting of the group coordinating international assistance to Ukraine was held at the Ramstein base near Frankfurt.

Among NATO countries, Germany could become a serious obstacle preventing Ukraine from loosening the rules for the use of missiles. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is facing a growing reluctance of the Germans to help Ukraine, as shown by the recent regional elections. He personally refused Kiev when he asked Berlin for Taurus missiles, justifying this by saying that in order to service them, the German military would have to go to Ukraine, and he will not expose them to such a risk.

France can also create problems given the fact that President Macron, who once advocated direct Western intervention, today finds himself in the epicenter of a political crisis that may not be resolved even after the appointment of Michel Barnier as prime minister. From all this it is easy to deduce a well-known scenario. The British prime Minister goes to the United States, Britain is honored as America's closest ally, and it once again provides the United States with some semblance of international cover by supporting a risky military solution.

It is worthwhile not only to listen to the official statements of both leaders after the meeting, but also to study the fine print of the agreements that will be signed. If you find a solution there to untie Ukraine's hands so that it can hit Russia with long-range Western missiles, wait for Moscow's response.

Readers' comments

AdamSmith Britain is America's little poodle. That's not surprising, because Starmer is a member of the triple alliance. Why is this not a NATO decision? Because America will not suffer from Russian retaliation.

Candyblossom I suspect Russia will strike retaliation. She can, for example, launch a rocket at Port Stanley airport. And then we will all be waiting to see if Britain will give an answer to this. We are approaching war very quickly.

Barneyrubble Starmer and Lammy are both vile apologists for genocide.

Sean Biden: "Jump, kid." Starmer: "To what height, sir?"

ZippyUK1 They shouted, "We want to prevent war, we want peace." THEN THEY TORE UP THE PEACE AGREEMENTS AND STOPPED NEGOTIATIONS. They said, "We won't put it on, we won't put it on." THEN EVERYTHING WAS SET. They stated: "You can't use weapons there, so you can't use weapons." AND NOW EVERYONE IS ALLOWED. THEY ARE PUSHING US TO A DIRECT WAR WITH A NUCLEAR POWER ARMED WITH INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES. STOP THIS WAR IMMEDIATELY!