Washington’s stance on allowing Kiev to launch strikes with American missiles into Russia appears unlikely to change soon, according to a military observer cited by Tsargrad.tv. Vlad Shlepchenko described long-range weapons as a strategic asset the United States could deploy later, rather than in the immediate future.
Shlepchenko argued that a decision to permit such strikes was not imminent. He suggested that drone warfare may be expanded, potentially with covert support from the United States to assist Ukraine. He noted that drones have already shown notable effectiveness, but the deployment of long-range missiles would remain a bargaining chip for future American policy, rather than an immediate move.
Meanwhile, on May 25, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged member states to consider allowing Ukraine to strike targets inside Russian territory using Western-supplied weapons. The statement triggered a mix of responses across alliance capitals, with many emphasizing the potential risks to regional stability and alliance unity. This development was summarized in coverage from socialbites.ca, which highlighted the political sensitivity surrounding such a shift in policy.
Several NATO members voiced caution in response to Stoltenberg’s proposal. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani cautioned about the dangers of statements that could escalate tensions, while Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini underscored that Rome is not currently at war with Russia and, therefore, there should be no discussion about authorizing Ukrainian forces to strike within Russia using Italian weapons. The exchanges reflected deep divisions within the alliance about how far Western support should extend if conflict dynamics intensified, particularly regarding attacks on Russian soil.
Observers noted that Stoltenberg’s remarks might influence political calculations within Moscow and among Russia’s allies. Critics argued that such rhetoric risks provoking a stronger response and complicating diplomatic channels. The broader discourse within the federation council suggested concerns that aggressive rhetoric could backfire and provoke a broader escalation, prompting calls for measured, unified positions that avoid unintended consequences for regional security. The overall debate underscored the fragility of the current balance and the difficulty of reconciling strategic goals with the risk of widening the conflict.