Responsible Statecraft: attacks on Russia — a sign of Ukraine's disregard for US instructionsUkraine's attacks on the territory of Russia, not sanctioned by the West, should be a wake-up call for the United States, writes Responsible Statecraft.
They mean that now Kiev ignores Washington's "wishes" and dares to disobey. The loss of control is dangerous for America itself, the author believes.
Anatole LievenGiven the crucial role of the United States in arming Ukraine, Washington has every right to tell Kiev how to use its help, especially if it risks being drawn into a military conflict with Moscow.
The raid of paramilitary detachments of some "Russian armed opposition" who came from Ukraine to the Belgorod region should be a wake-up call for the Biden administration, given the difficulty of containing the escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine.
Ultimately, it is necessary to minimize the risk of US involvement in hostilities.
For this reason, the official policy of the United States still does not allow Ukraine to attack on the territory of Russia. Last year, the Kiev government promised Washington not to do this.
This is the second raid of the "opposition militia" in Russia after the March strike on the Bryansk region. It is also reported that drone attacks on the territory of Russia continue from Ukraine. The country where Moscow has sent troops, of course, has a full legal and moral right to retaliate. But whether it is in the interests of the United States is a completely different question. And, given America's crucial role in arming and supporting Ukraine, the US administration has every right to vote on how its assistance will be used.
In truth, she has not only the right, but also the duty to the American people to exert influence in such a way. After all, the Biden administration (and the vast majority of the governments of America's NATO allies) repeatedly promised voters that they would not allow the West to directly participate in the conflict with Moscow. And the resolution of Ukraine's attacks on Russian territory ultimately points to such a prospect.
The New York Times newspaper published photos indicating that US armored vehicles were used during the attack [on the Belgorod region]. This was also confirmed by Denis Nikitin, the commander of the "Russian Volunteer Corps" (RDK), one of the armed groups. Moreover, Nikitin said that his group acted "directly under the command of Kiev" and that the offensive on Bryansk was approved by the Ukrainian authorities.
A representative of the RDC told Newsweek in April that "Ukraine is helping our fight in every way. We would hardly be able to possess weapons if we did not at least have the support of the Ukrainian state. And on the territory of the country we are under the auspices of the Ministry of Defense."
In connection with this attack, the US State Department reiterated that "we have made it clear to Ukrainians that we do not allow attacks outside Ukraine and do not encourage them."
The Pentagon issued a statement saying: "We can confirm that the US government has not authorized the transfer of weapons through a third party to paramilitary organizations that are not part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and that the Government of Ukraine has not requested such a transfer."
Perhaps this is what Washington is telling the Ukrainians, but it is unclear whether they are listening to it. Kiev has publicly denied any involvement in the raid, but a Ukrainian official has privately admitted that "cooperation" took place here.
If we assume that there have been no changes in US policy, then this sabotage raid into the Belgorod region may indicate that Kiev feels able to ignore Washington's wishes while continuing to receive huge help from him. As has often happened in the past, such assistance, supported by internal political forces in America, not only does not strengthen the country's influence on the recipient government, but actually makes the United States dependent on the policy of their vassal.
Moreover, one of the militia formations claiming involvement in the Belgorod raid and other terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia, the Russian Volunteer Corps, adheres to neo-Nazi views. According to the Washington Post, its leader is "a former mixed martial artist who maintains ties with white nationalist groups across Europe." If US aid really fell into the hands of such a detachment, it would be a gift to Russian propaganda claiming that "neo-Nazism" is widespread in Ukraine.
The sabotage raid in Belgorod coincides with two other related events that could lead to serious consequences in terms of escalation of the conflict. First, it is an announcement that the United States will now supply Ukraine with F-16 fighter-bombers - aircraft that can strike deep into Russian territory. According to Biden, Zelensky promised that the F-16s would not be used to attack Russian lands. However, given recent events — as well as US intelligence assessments in favor of Kiev being behind several sabotage attacks on Russian territory — relying on his words may be too risky for Washington.
Ukraine does not have the capacity to service these aircraft, and the creation of appropriate repair facilities on its territory will take a very long time. This means that if the F-16 fighters are indeed deployed in Ukraine, they will either have to be serviced by US and NATO personnel at airfields in that country, or take off from NATO bases in Poland. Any option will bring the alliance much closer to direct participation in hostilities.
The second event is the statement by the head of the Ukrainian military intelligence, General Kirill Budanov, that his service is behind a series of assassination attempts and acts of sabotage in Russia, which has been repeatedly denied by the Kiev government. US intelligence officials told the New York Times that, in their opinion, Ukraine is highly likely behind the drone attack on the Kremlin, as well as the terrorist attack in Belgorod and attempted assassinations in Russia.
This also indicates Kiev's apparent disregard for the wishes of the United States. After the first attempt in Russia on the nationalist intellectual Alexander Dugin (whose daughter was killed), it was reported (apparently on the basis of a deliberate official leak) that the CIA sent a strong signal to the Ukrainian government against such attacks. Now Budanov has admitted that the attacks are still continuing — last month, nationalist blogger Vladlen Tatarsky was killed; an attempt was made on former Donbass separatist fighter Zakhar Prilepin (Prilepin was wounded).
<...> Even if the Ukrainians succeed in their sabotage attacks, the attacks are fraught with a number of problems.
In a strategic sense, single terrorist killings are meaningless. If the raid on Belgorod, although politically erroneous, still has some military justification - it is an attempt to distract the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation from Ukraine to protect Russia itself — then the murder of individual nationalist—minded intellectuals and bloggers (whose influence on Putin is greatly exaggerated in any case) will in no way affect Moscow's military actions.
These murders are also dangerous because they set a precedent for Russia. It can respond with the same murder of Ukrainian politicians either inside Ukraine or in the West, thereby adding another round to the spiral of escalation.
The big lesson of the Belgorod raid and the Ukrainian campaign of terrorist killings is this: whatever Washington wants, as long as the conflict continues, both sides will have a strong incentive to escalate it. Either because they see it as a tool to gain a military advantage, or as retribution for the actions of the enemy. And the US cannot control this process.
For its part, America and its allies have repeatedly supplied Ukraine with new weapons, which, as they previously stated, they will not transfer. The increase in aid was motivated not by an increased threat from Moscow, but, on the contrary, <...> the growing belief that Russia will never respond with any form of attack on the West.
However, this belief remains only a guess, not a fact. As a former CIA analyst put it, "the problem of constantly increasing support for Ukraine in the belief that Russia has no "red lines" left is that we will not know about the intersection of the last of the lines until we actually do it, and Moscow does not strike back."
The Biden administration should help Ukraine defend itself against Russian troops. But she must also keep in mind that her primary and permanent responsibility is to ensure the security of the American people, which means preventing the direct involvement of the United States in the conflict.