Russian lawmaker Maria Butina issued a stark warning on Monday, stating that the Biden administration’s reported decision to permit Ukraine to use U.S.-made weapons for strikes deep into Russian territory risks triggering World War Three. The remarks highlight escalating tensions between the United States, NATO, and Russia as the war in Ukraine grinds on.
“These guys, Biden’s administration, are trying to escalate the situation to the maximum while they still have power and are still in office,” Butina told Reuters in an interview. “I have a great hope that (Donald) Trump will overcome this decision if this has been made because they are seriously risking the start of World War Three which is not in anybody’s interest.”
The comments come as reports from Reuters and The New York Times indicate that the Biden administration has given Ukraine the green light to strike deep into Russia with U.S.-supplied weapons. While the Kremlin has yet to issue an official response, such a policy would mark a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict.
The reports from major U.S. outlets suggest a dramatic shift in American policy, which had previously focused on supplying Ukraine with defensive weapons and equipment for use within its own borders. Allowing Ukraine to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory with U.S.-provided systems signals a more aggressive stance, one likely to provoke serious consequences.
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that such actions would be interpreted as direct involvement of NATO countries in the war. In a statement made in September, he emphasized that enabling Ukraine to launch long-range strikes into Russia would necessitate NATO infrastructure and personnel, potentially drawing the alliance into the conflict.
“This would mean the direct involvement of NATO countries, the United States and European countries in the war in Ukraine,” Putin said at the time.
In October, Putin reiterated that Russia’s defense ministry was exploring various responses should NATO and the United States support such operations. While he did not specify what those responses might entail, analysts believe they could range from intensified strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure to cyberattacks and other asymmetric warfare tactics aimed at Western targets.
Butina’s statements reflect a growing narrative within Russia’s political elite that the Biden administration’s policies are pushing the world toward a catastrophic global conflict. As a member of Russia’s ruling United Russia party, Butina echoed sentiments of concern and disbelief at the reported U.S. decision.
“I guess there are some people in the United States who have nothing to lose for whatever reason or who are completely off the grid so much that they simply do not care,” Butina said.
Butina, who spent 15 months in a U.S. prison after being convicted of acting as an unregistered Russian agent, has since become a vocal supporter of President Putin and his administration. Her remarks also signaled a hope that Donald Trump, should he regain the presidency, might reverse any such decisions, potentially easing tensions.
The lawmaker’s comments align with broader Russian narratives portraying the U.S. and NATO as aggressors in the conflict. This rhetoric serves to consolidate domestic support for the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine while framing the West as recklessly endangering global stability.
The potential for Ukraine to use U.S.-made weapons to strike deep into Russian territory raises complex questions about international law, sovereignty, and military strategy. Such strikes could blur the line between support for Ukraine’s self-defense and direct involvement in the conflict, drawing NATO countries closer to active participation.
NATO countries have maintained a delicate balance in their support for Ukraine, providing weapons and financial aid while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia. A policy shift allowing deep strikes could test this unity, as some member states might balk at the increased risk of retaliation.
Russia has already signaled its intent to respond aggressively to Western involvement.
- Targeted strikes on NATO military infrastructure.
- Escalation of cyber warfare against Western countries.
- Deployment of advanced weaponry in disputed regions.
Military experts warn that any escalation raises the risk of miscalculation, where an unintended incident—such as a missile strike on NATO territory—could spiral into a broader conflict.
For Ukraine, the ability to strike targets deep within Russia could be a game-changer. Such attacks could disrupt Russian logistics, weaken its military capacity, and possibly force Moscow to negotiate. However, Kyiv must weigh the potential benefits against the risks of provoking even harsher responses from Russia, which has already intensified its missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.
Ukrainian officials have consistently argued for the right to defend themselves against Russian aggression, including attacks on their own cities and critical infrastructure. While they have refrained from publicly commenting on the reported policy change, past statements suggest that they view strikes within Russia as legitimate acts of self-defense.
The reported decision comes amid a politically charged environment in Washington. With the Biden administration facing significant pressure domestically and internationally, the move could be seen as a demonstration of unwavering support for Ukraine. However, critics warn it risks alienating U.S. allies and escalating the conflict.
Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race, has frequently criticized Biden’s handling of the Ukraine war. Trump has advocated for peace talks and suggested that Biden’s policies risk drawing the United States into a broader war.
While the Kremlin has yet to issue a formal response to the reports, analysts predict that Moscow will likely escalate its rhetoric and military posture in the coming days. Potential actions could include:
- Increased mobilization: Moscow might accelerate its efforts to recruit and deploy more troops to the front lines.
- Diplomatic measures: Russia could seek to rally support from allies like China and Iran, framing the U.S. decision as a threat to global stability.
- Economic retaliation: Russia might target Western interests through energy cutoffs or other economic means.
