Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stark warning on Sunday, highlighting potential retaliatory measures should the United States and NATO allies back Ukrainian forces in launching strikes deep into Russian territory with long-range Western missiles. The remarks underscore an escalating confrontation that has been building since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. Now, amid intensifying battlefield developments and looming Western support debates, the conflict seems poised to enter a new, precarious phase that many experts suggest could push the boundaries of a regional war.
With the Ukraine conflict already the most significant face-off between Russia and the West since the Cold War, any step involving NATO-backed long-range missile strikes into Russia could lead to consequences on a global scale, according to analysts.
In an interview with Russian state television, Putin elaborated on the potential response from Russia if NATO were to greenlight deep-strike capabilities for Ukraine. The Russian Ministry of Defense, he revealed, is “exploring a range of responses” should Ukrainian forces gain the operational latitude to strike far beyond their borders, directly into Russian heartland targets. Such a development, Putin argued, would not only escalate the conflict but also signal NATO’s direct involvement in the war.
“Western approval for such a step would mean the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States, and European countries in the war in Ukraine,” Putin stated on Sept. 12. He underscored that NATO’s extensive support would likely entail military infrastructure, intelligence-sharing, and personnel integration necessary for targeting and missile deployment – effectively dragging NATO into the battlefield.
The West’s continued discussions about potentially arming Ukraine with advanced Western missiles capable of targeting Russian territories follow Ukraine’s persistent requests for greater military aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly implored allies for these capabilities, arguing that they could be crucial for countering recent Russian advances. Despite Ukraine’s use of drones and other measures to penetrate Russian defenses, Zelensky contends that long-range missiles would provide a more decisive edge in the ongoing struggle.
During his Sunday remarks, Putin remained guarded about the specifics of Russia’s potential retaliatory actions, saying only that Moscow was evaluating several scenarios. Russian defense planners, he noted, were actively reviewing options to mitigate or counter any long-range missile strikes on Russian soil – a move that Russia views as a severe escalation and a direct provocation from NATO.
“(The Russian defense ministry) is thinking about how to respond to the possible long-range strikes on Russian territory, it will offer a range of responses,” Putin disclosed to Pavel Zarubin, a top Kremlin journalist with Russian state television.
The deliberations come at a moment of accelerated Russian operations in eastern Ukraine, a region central to the broader conflict and emblematic of Putin’s aims to control and expand Russian influence. Moscow’s calculations also seem to factor in domestic and foreign policy optics, as Putin attempts to balance a firm stance with measured responses that would not overly antagonize Western powers or compromise regional stability.
Although Ukrainian leaders are pushing hard for the West to provide more lethal, far-reaching weaponry, the response from Washington has been tepid. Some American officials remain unconvinced that granting Ukraine long-range missile capability would shift the course of the war. Anonymous sources within the U.S. defense sector express doubts that allowing Ukraine to strike within Russian territory would yield any strategically favorable outcomes.
Publicly, the Biden administration has neither confirmed nor denied any intention to supply Ukraine with the requested missile systems. White House officials maintain that the goal is to empower Ukraine defensively rather than escalate the conflict into Russian territory, which could have unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic, consequences.
Despite Western reluctance, Ukrainian forces have increasingly targeted Russian sites through various tactics, including long-range drones. The use of drones by Kyiv, although less potent than the requested missiles, signals a willingness to push into Russian territory regardless of Western approval for heavier weaponry. These drone operations have resulted in some strategic gains, creating supply chain disruptions and logistical hurdles for Russian forces, although not sufficient to halt their advances entirely.
Such strikes are part of a broader strategy by Kyiv to project resilience and capacity, even if limited, to strike back. For many Ukrainians, these drone strikes are both a demonstration of defiance and a symbol of an emboldened nation that is unwilling to capitulate.
In a striking move just weeks before the United States presidential election, Putin introduced revisions to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, a shift that the Kremlin described as a preemptive countermeasure against NATO’s potential provision of long-range missiles to Ukraine. This adjustment effectively places the nuclear option closer to the forefront of Moscow’s defensive strategies, with Kremlin officials indicating that nuclear deterrence would be used if Western forces directly endangered Russian territory or critical infrastructure.
Asked by Zarubin whether Russia’s warnings had resonated with the West, Putin replied, “I hope they have heard. Because, of course, we will have to make some decisions for ourselves, too.” By signaling his resolve to expand Russia’s strategic scope, Putin is attempting to reinforce a long-standing deterrent, warning NATO and the United States against perceived encroachments.
Russian state media has likewise highlighted the revisions in nuclear policy, framing them as a reminder of the risks inherent in pushing Russia into a corner. From Moscow’s perspective, these adjustments are necessary to maintain strategic balance and to forestall what it perceives as Western ambitions to weaken or contain Russia through the ongoing conflict.
As the United States approaches a pivotal presidential election, the outcome could significantly influence the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict. Former President Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner, has pledged to end the Ukraine war, albeit without providing a clear outline of how he would achieve this. Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris, representing the Democratic stance, has reaffirmed her commitment to maintaining strong support for Ukraine.
How either administration would approach the question of long-range missile support remains an open question, though a shift in the executive office could recalibrate Washington’s engagement in the conflict. Many analysts believe that a Trump administration might push for peace negotiations and conflict de-escalation, while a Harris administration would likely continue bolstering Kyiv’s defenses without crossing into direct confrontation.
European NATO members have displayed mixed responses to the growing possibility of escalation. Several EU leaders express concern that expanding the scope of Ukrainian strikes could result in severe Russian retaliation, impacting both European stability and energy security. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has cautioned that any direct NATO involvement could potentially destabilize the European continent, aligning with other voices in the EU urging caution.
Meanwhile, in Asia, Chinese officials have monitored the situation with mounting apprehension, warning against steps that might escalate the conflict further. The Chinese government, which has maintained a close but cautious relationship with Russia, has reiterated its call for de-escalation, urging both NATO and Russia to seek diplomatic resolutions and prevent the conflict from spiraling beyond control.
As Putin’s remarks reverberate internationally, the broader implications of his message are difficult to ignore. The conflict, which has already drawn in multiple regional powers and triggered sanctions with global ramifications, now threatens to escalate in ways that could alter international security dynamics. Experts warn that the current developments represent one of the most dangerous phases in the Ukraine war, a period that could determine the nature of future global alliances and rivalries.
Russia’s assertive posturing has compelled the West to consider its next steps carefully. While NATO has thus far avoided direct involvement in the conflict, the prospect of backing long-range strikes on Russian soil tests the alliance’s commitment to supporting Ukraine without igniting a wider war.
