Russian officials continued to use threatening rhetoric as part of efforts to deter the United States from publicly authorizing Ukraine’s use of US-provided ATACMS in limited strikes against Russian and North Korean military targets in Kursk Oblast. This US authorization, if officially confirmed, would notably be a mild response to Russia’s escalatory introduction of North Korean troops as active combatants in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed on November 18 that the United States is “adding fuel to the fire” and that the US authorization of Ukrainian ATACMS strikes against Russian military targets would be a “qualitatively new round of tension” and a “qualitative” change in US participation in the war.[1] Peskov reiterated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s September 12 claims that Ukrainian strikes against Russia using Western-provided weapons would represent an escalation and directly involve Western countries in the war.[2] Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova also reiterated Putin’s September statements and further claimed that Ukrainian long-range missile strikes on Russia would be a “radical change in the essence and nature” of the war and that the Russian response would be “adequate and tangible.”[3] Russian State Duma and Federation Council deputies made similar threats, claiming that Russia would be “forced” to respond to this “escalation,” including with strikes against Ukraine using unspecified “new” weapons systems, and that Russia’s new nuclear doctrine will outline the consequences of this US decision.[4] Russia has not previously escalated militarily against any perceived Western violations of Russia’s “red lines” — as ISW has repeatedly observed.[5]
Select Russian officials and propagandists heavily emphasized that US officials have not yet formally confirmed the ATACMS strike authorization, likely in an attempt to convince the United States to back out of the decision and deny the media reports of the authorization. Zakharova stated that it is unclear if Western media outlets reporting on the US authorization are citing official sources, and Russian propagandist Vladimir Solovyov similarly questioned the credibility of the US media reports.[6]
Neither Ukrainian nor US officials have confirmed reports of the US authorization of Ukrainian ATACMS strikes, but US officials noted that Russia escalated the war with the deployment of North Korean forces alongside Russian forces on the battlefield. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did not directly confirm media reports of the US authorization of limited ATACMS strikes, but stated on November 17 that “strikes are not carried out with words” and “such things are not announced,” but that “the missiles will speak for themselves.”[7] US Deputy National Security Advisor Jonathan Finer also did not confirm the US strike authorization but noted that Russia escalated the war with the deployment of North Korean forces to the battlefield and the massive drone and missile strike series against Ukrainian energy infrastructure on the night of November 16 to 17.[8] Finer directly responded to Peskov, stating that Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine “lit the fire.”[9] US outlet Axios reported on November 17 that a source with knowledge of the matter stated that the Biden administration granted Ukraine permission to use ATACMS in order to deter North Korea from sending more troops to Russia for the war.[10] Axios reported that US officials hope that North Korea might reconsider its decision to deploy military personnel to Russia if Ukrainian forces strike North Korean forces in Kursk Oblast.
Putin’s introduction of North Korea as a new belligerent in his invasion of Ukraine was a major escalation. Allowing Ukraine to use US missiles against legitimate military targets in Russian territory in accord with all international laws and laws of armed conflict is a very limited response and cannot reasonably be characterized as an escalation in itself.
French and British sources clarified on November 18 that the reported US permissions regarding Ukraine’s ability to use ATACMS for limited strikes within Russia do not inherently extend to Ukraine’s ability to use French and UK-provided SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles for long-range strikes in Russia. French outlet Le Figaro, which ISW cited on November 17, removed phrasing from its November 17 article reporting that the ATACMS permission would extend to SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles.[11] French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot noted on November 18 that France remains open to the option of allowing Ukraine to use French-provided long-range missiles to strike within Russia but confirmed that France has not yet granted these permissions to Ukraine despite initial and erroneous reporting on November 17.[12] UK outlet The Times reported on November 18 that Downing Street sources stated that ATACMS have “different military specifications” from UK-provided Storm Shadows, and other UK outlets, including The Sun and The Guardian, noted on November 18 that the United States is “still blocking” Ukraine from using SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles against legitimate targets on Russian territory.[13] The UK and France jointly produce SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles, both of which utilize American-provided technologies and targeting intelligence, so all three parties would need to agree to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to use either SCALP or Storm Shadow missiles in long-range strikes against targets on Russian territory.[14] Persistent restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to use SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles will continue to limit Ukraine’s ability to fully target the Russian rear with a broad arsenal of suitable systems, thus allowing Russia to maintain sanctuary space within its near and far-rear to which it is not entitled by any principle of international law or norms.[15]
The Kremlin continues to state its unwillingness to accept any compromises, including those that would “freeze” the conflict along the current frontline – further demonstrating the Kremlin’s insistence on complete Ukraine capitulation. Bloomberg reported on November 18 that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan plans to submit a peace plan for Russia’s war in Ukraine at the G20 summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from November 18 to 19 that would include the freezing of the conflict along the current frontlines, a 10-year postponement of Ukraine’s NATO membership alongside assurances of Western provisions of military supplies to Ukraine, the establishment of a demilitarized zone in eastern Ukraine, and the stationing of foreign troops in Ukraine.[16] Pro-Turkish government outlet Daily Sabah reported that sources in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) denied reports that Erdogan would propose postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership, however, butstated that the Turkish government supports diplomatic initiatives aimed at ending the war.[17] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to the initial reports of the Turkish peace proposal, stating that “freezing” the frontline is “a priori unacceptable” for the Kremlin and that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s previously stated conditions for ending the war — which amounted to full Ukrainian capitulation — remain “fully relevant.”[18] ISW has routinely assessed that the Kremlin’s objective of total Ukrainian capitulation remains unchanged, and Peskov’s comment further demonstrates that Russian authorities are unwilling to engage in good-faith negotiations that result in compromises, even those on terms unfavorable to Ukraine, such as a freezing of the conflict. ISW continues to assess that a negotiated ceasefire on the current lines will only benefit Russia and will afford the Kremlin time to further radicalize and militarize Russian society against Ukraine and the Russian military time to rest and reconstitute, likely before conducting a future attack on Ukraine.[19]
Key Takeaways:
- Russian officials continued to use threatening rhetoric as part of efforts to deter the United States from publicly authorizing Ukraine’s use of US-provided ATACMS in limited strikes against Russian and North Korean military targets in Kursk Oblast. This US authorization, if officially confirmed, would notably be a mild response to Russia’s escalatory introduction of North Korean troops as active combatants in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
- Putin’s introduction of North Korea as a new belligerent in his invasion of Ukraine was a major escalation. Allowing Ukraine to use US missiles against legitimate military targets in Russian territory in accord with all international laws and laws of armed conflict is a very limited response and cannot reasonably be characterized as an escalation in itself.
- French and British sources clarified on November 18 that the reported US permissions regarding Ukraine’s ability to use ATACMS for limited strikes within Russia do not inherently extend to Ukraine’s ability to use French and UK-provided SCALP and Storm Shadow missiles for long-range strikes in Russia.
- The Kremlin continues to state its unwillingness to accept any compromises, including those that would “freeze” the conflict along the current frontline – further demonstrating the Kremlin’s insistence on complete Ukraine capitulation.
- Russian forces recently advanced in the main Ukrainian salient in Kursk Oblast, in Kupyansk, west of Kreminna, and in the Siversk, Pokrovsk, and Vuhledar directions.
- The Kremlin is continuing to militarize different levels of the Russian government by expanding the “Time of Heroes” program that aims to place veterans of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in positions in local, regional, and federal governments.
- The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) illegally conscripted Ukrainian youth in occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia oblasts as part of Russia’s Fall 2024 conscription cycle.