Press
Confusing signal in the Ukraine war: Can Kiev now use “Storm Shadow” in Russia? Military expert Gustav Gressel explains the situation to IPPEN.MEDIA.
London/Berlin – “Take the war to Russia” – this is what CDU politician and former Bundeswehr commander Roderich Kiesewetter called for months ago as a necessary step in Ukraine’s defense struggle. But strikes with Western weapons, for example against airfields or military camps in Russian territory, are considered a “red line”: Kiev uses its own drones to attack such targets or even refineries in Russia.
But Britain’s new government, led by Social Democrat Keir Starmer, has now raised big question marks: Starmer said on July 10 that he wanted to allow the use of “Storm Shadow” cruise missiles on Russian targets – at least for defensive purposes and in accordance with international humanitarian law. This was followed by hints, anonymous denials and ambiguous official statements, most recently on Friday (July 19). So what is the situation? Military expert Gustav Gressel has IPPEN.MEDIA an assessment was given – and in doing so, the focus was placed primarily on tactical questions in public communication.
Reality in the Ukraine war speaks for itself: “Storm Shadow” will probably continue to have limited impact
“The British and French have not publicly communicated that they have imposed restrictions on the targeting of their weapons,” emphasized Gressel in his statement on Friday evening (July 19). But: “That does not mean that they have not done so.” In other words: Despite all the signs, some of which are positive for Ukraine and some of which are contradictory, Kiev is likely to continue to be prohibited from using “Storm Shadows” or the French equivalent “SCALP” in Russia. Gressel sees clear signs of this in the reality of war.
“If Ukraine were really free to attack Russian territory with SCALP or Storm Shadow, they would have done so already, especially against field airfields,” explained the Austrian political scientist. And: The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Starmer would probably not have asked for this clearance again during his visit to London on Friday.
The date had further fuelled the uncertainty. Despite Starmer’s statement of July 10, Selenskyj once again explicitly asked the British government to lift restrictions – precisely in order to prevent bloody Russian attacks on residential areas. Starmer’s defence minister John Healey told the BBC on the one hand, Britain does not prohibit Ukraine from using the weapons against targets in Russia – but on the other hand he also declared that he would not comment publicly on the question of whether Kiev could use Storm Shadow against Russian targets. There are “intensive discussions” on “complex issues”.
Western weapons against targets in Russia: Is the UK acting “smarter” than Germany?
So does the sticking point lie somewhere between “not prohibited” and “permitted”? It seems possible that a not undesirable side effect of the confusing debate is that it leaves Vladimir Putin’s military in the dark. From Gressel’s point of view, such open questions are not at all counterproductive.
“I think the British-French attitude of not shoving restrictions in the Russians’ faces and making a public statement about them is also a more intelligent method than the German-American policy of proclamation,” he explained. IPPEN.MEDIABecause, as Gressel suggested, the obvious concern of Germany and the USA about Russian threats of nuclear counterattacks is playing Putin into the cards. From the German-US debates – one example is the months-long tug-of-war over the German Taurus cruise missiles – Russia derives “a claim to the credibility of its nuclear deterrence that ultimately cannot be maintained,” explained Gressel.
Putin’s “red lines” have already been crossed several times: Most restrictions are “nonsense”
In fact, many of the Kremlin’s interim “red lines” in the Ukraine War have been gradually exceeded. Be it the use of “heavy weapons” from the West, of tanks of various kinds or now increasingly of modern Western fighter jets such as the F-16.
Gressel’s verdict on this highly public salami tactic is quite clear: Most of these restrictions are “nonsense” anyway and would have to be “revoked sooner or later”. In the summer, for example, after much wrangling, the West authorized strikes on targets in the Russian hinterland of the Kharkiv region, which had been heavily attacked from the air. Much to Russia’s displeasure, but without a harsh response from Moscow.
“Storm Shadow” in the Ukraine war: Expert Gressel sees benefits – without further “escalation”
Gressel believes that the option of striking specific targets on Russian territory makes sense, such as military airfields, aircraft repair workshops, military command centers, or bases and launch points for Russia’s long-range weapons. Ukraine could attack all of these targets, but only with its own weapons – which cause significantly less damage to the weapons, equipment, and resources of the Russian attackers.
More massive strikes could force Russia to withdraw its weapons further into the hinterland – and thus make attacks on Ukraine more difficult, says the expert. This has been shown in Crimea, for example. The peninsula is considered occupied Ukrainian territory, so Ukraine is allowed to use Western weapons here and has achieved success with this, Gressel said in a YouTube video on the subject.
Gressel does not believe that permission to strike Russian targets would result in an indiscriminate bombardment of Ukraine in Russia. After all, there is no such thing in the occupied territories. A Russian escalation is also not to be expected: “For Russia, this is a full-scale war in which it is already using its full forces,” he said at the time. “We are already living in an escalation.” However, there are also experts who say otherwise. (fn)
#Mystery #surrounding #Ukraines #Storm #Shadows #war #clear #evidence