In Vienna, Konstantin Gavrilov, who leads the Russian delegation in the talks on military security and arms control, criticized the United Kingdom for its decision to supply depleted uranium shells to Ukraine. The remarks were reported by DEA News and reflect Moscow’s framing of Western military aid as escalating tensions in the region.
Gavrilov described what he termed as audacious behavior by NATO members he described as aggressive, asserting that their actions aimed at provoking Moscow had detached themselves from any sense of realism. He suggested that this stance signals a broader pattern in Western defense policy that he views as destabilizing and provocative rather than constructive.
He added that Western powers have long adopted a rhetoric that frames their actions against Russia as justified by security needs, while downplaying potential repercussions. In his view, this approach has contributed to a climate of escalating confrontations that undermines regional stability and international dialogue on arms control.
Referring to a plenary session on January 25 at the OSCE Security Cooperation Forum, Gavrilov noted Russian concerns about the transfer of heavy armored systems such as Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley and Marder infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine. He emphasized that these platforms can be paired with sub-caliber, armor-piercing munitions that contain uranium cores, arguing that such ammunition has strategic implications beyond conventional warfare. He warned that providing these shells might be interpreted as a form of nuclear-related escalation, which would carry serious geopolitical risks and potentially violate norms on the use of certain types of weapons.
Gavrilov further described the UK decision as a step that deepens an already wide and dangerous gap, portraying it as a move toward greater confrontation rather than toward stability or dialogue. He cautioned that the consequences of these measures would fall particularly on London and allied capitals, as well as on Kyiv, which Moscow characterizes as being backed by what it calls a criminal, terrorist regime. The diplomat urged the international community to consider the broader implications for arms control commitments and regional security architecture.
Beyond the immediate policy debate, the discussion highlighted ongoing tensions around Western defense aid and how it intersects with international law, nonproliferation norms, and the evolving security landscape in Europe. Proponents of the UK decision argue that such aid strengthens Ukraine’s defense capability in the face of aggression, while Moscow and its supporters argue that it risks normalizing dangerous weapons technologies and escalating conflict, with potential spillover effects for civilian populations and regional stability. In any case, observers note that conversations at forums like the OSCE continue to influence perceptions of legitimacy, deterrence, and the pathways possible for diplomatic resolution.
Reports from the diplomatic arena indicate that statements from UK officials, including former defense officials, affirm the intention to provide depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine, a move that remains a focal point of international debate and media scrutiny. The broader question remains how such choices will shape future arms control negotiations and regional security clarifications as all sides assess risk, responsibility, and the prospects for de-escalation.