However, in order to put further pressure on the West for its backing of Kyiv, Russia is probably going to intensify a sabotage operation against European targets.
New York: Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s more aggressive remarks, the U.S. decision to let Ukraine to fire American weapons farther into Russia has not raised the likelihood of a nuclear strike, five people familiar with U.S. intelligence told Reuters.
However, according to two senior officials, a congressman, and two congressional staffers informed on the issue, Russia is likely to intensify a campaign of sabotage against European targets in order to put more pressure on the West about its backing of Kyiv.
Over the last seven months, a number of intelligence analyses have determined that a decision to relax limits on Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons is unlikely to lead to nuclear escalation. The individuals, who were given anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence, stated that this opinion has not altered in response to President Joe Biden’s shift in the United States’ position on weapons this month.
Referring to American missiles having a range of up to 190 miles (306 km), one congressional staffer informed on the information stated, “The assessments were consistent: The ATACMs weren’t going to change Russia’s nuclear calculus.”
That view has not been altered by Russia’s launch of a new ballistic missile last week, which experts think was intended as a signal to Washington and its European allies.
Despite Washington’s assessment that Russia would not attempt to escalate with its nuclear capabilities, one of the five U.S. officials stated that Russia will attempt to equal what it perceives as U.S. escalation. According to the official, that endeavor included putting the new missile into service.
According to U.S. officials, the intelligence has aided in directing a contentious discussion inside Biden’s administration in recent months about whether it was worth the chance of upsetting Putin for Washington to relax limitations on Ukraine’s use of American weaponry.
At first, officials opposed the measure, pointing to worries about escalation and the unpredictability of Putin’s reaction. Some of those officials, including those in the State Department, Pentagon, and White House, were afraid of assaults on NATO partners and deadly reprisals against American military and diplomatic personnel.
Others were particularly concerned about the possibility of nuclear escalation. U.S. officials have stated that Biden’s decision was altered because to North Korea’s involvement in the conflict prior to the U.S. presidential election.
Although some authorities now think that the nuclear and other escalation worries were exaggerated, they emphasize that nuclear escalation is still a possibility and that the entire situation in Ukraine is still perilous. There is still concern about Russia’s capacity to retaliate against the West in other clandestine ways.
Regarding Russia’s sabotage in Europe, Angela Stent, head of Eurasian, Russian, and East European studies at Georgetown University, stated, “Russia’s hybrid response is a concern.”
There was always a potential of escalation. Now, there is further cause for alarm.
Both the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the White House chose not to comment.
A request for comment about the intelligence assessments was not immediately answered by the Kremlin.
COUNTER-REACTION AND REACTION
Moscow and Kyiv have been engaged in a never-ending loop of increasing movements and countermoves since Ukraine unexpectedly invaded Russia’s Kursk region in August.
The United States claims that North Korea has donated between 11,000 and 12,000 troops to support Russia’s military effort.
Russia modified its nuclear strategy, reducing the threshold for a nuclear strike, on the same day that Ukraine launched its first strike under the loosened U.S. policy.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, U.S. authorities have been considering the possibility of nuclear escalation. According to CIA Director William Burns, there was a genuine chance that Russia might attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons in late 2022.
Nevertheless, the White House proceeded to provide Ukraine with military help worth billions of dollars.
As Putin did not follow through on his threats, some officials’ worries subsided, but he continued to play a significant role in the administration’s deliberations about how best to assist Kyiv.
Citing a limited supply of ATACMs, a danger of escalation by Moscow, and a small tactical advantage, the White House permitted Ukraine to employ American missiles in restricted instances to attack over the border but not deep within Russia in May.
According to an early summer intelligence assessment prepared at the White House’s request, 90% of Russian aircraft had been repositioned back from the border, out of range of the short-range missiles, meaning that strikes across the border from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv would have little effect.
Although Putin frequently threatens to use nuclear weapons, the evaluations also pointed out that Moscow is unlikely to do so, in part because there is no obvious military advantage. Noting that Russia was already involved in sabotage and cyberattacks, intelligence officials characterized the nuclear option as a last choice for Russia and stated that Putin would first use other forms of retaliation.
However, some Pentagon and White House officials contended that permitting Kyiv to use the missiles to launch an attack inside Russia would place Kyiv, the United States, and American allies in a precarious position and prompt Putin to respond with nuclear weapons or other lethal means outside the conflict zone.
Officials at the Pentagon were concerned about assaults on American military installations.
The factor of North Korea
A senior U.S. source said the government was persuaded to permit the long-range attacks by the arrival of North Korean forces, especially by a group of Pentagon and White House officials who were worried about escalation.
According to the person, Moscow saw the North Korean forces as an escalation that required a reaction from Washington, and Russia was gaining ground on the battlefield.
“The decision to allow wider use of ATACMs came too late, and the nuclear fears were overstated given the early intelligence assessments downplaying the risk of nuclear escalation,” a senior U.S. official and a senator said, citing subsequent developments from Russia.
According to intelligence sources, sabotage is expected to be the most effective and comprehensive form of retaliation used by Moscow. According to one European official, Russian intelligence agencies have begun a broad international campaign in Europe to scare nations that back Ukraine.
A U.S. official also stated that Russia has a vast network of operatives and is investigating ways to use them, and that Moscow is aggressively seeking to expand its “gray-zone” warfare against the West.
