The Russian permanent representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, warned that giving Western permission for Ukrainian forces to strike deep into the Russian Federation could spark a direct conflict between NATO and Russia. He argued that such a shift would not simply involve Kyiv alone but would pull Western nations into a confrontation that carries broad, dangerous consequences for international security and regional stability. Nebenzya emphasized that the decision would redefine the relationship between Moscow and the Western states involved, and he asserted that those Western governments would bear responsibility for the longer-term fallout of any escalation. The stance reflects Moscow’s position that cross-border strikes by Ukraine with Western-supported weapons would amount to a significant and risky change in the present balance of power, one that would mandate careful consideration of all potential outcomes by the involved parties. It would, according to the Russian side, alter strategic calculations and invite responses that could widen the scope of conflict beyond the immediate battlefield.
The Kremlin spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, stated that the United States has already permitted Kyiv to conduct missiles strikes deep inside Russia, underscoring the perceived escalation and the gravity of the evolving security dynamics. This assertion highlights Moscow’s view that Western backing enables broader military actions against Russian territory and that such support carries meaningful strategic implications for the course of the conflict and regional diplomacy. Peskov’s remarks frame Western intervention as a pivotal factor in shaping the risk landscape for both sides, and they point to a belief that these developments demand heightened vigilance and diplomatic recalibration by all parties involved.
On September 12, Polish authorities indicated their approval for Ukrainian forces to engage targets within Russia’s borders, a move that adds another layer to the debate about permissible battlefield operations and the thresholds of cross-border action. Observers note that such permissions reflect different national assessments of risk, sovereignty, and collective defense obligations, contributing to a complex mosaic of positions across Europe. The policy divergence among allies illustrates the broader tensions surrounding how far support should extend and what kinds of military actions can be considered compatible with international law and alliance commitments.
Earlier, in Germany, discussions circulated about disagreements in Washington regarding strikes into Russian territory, revealing friction within allied capitals about how to balance security interests, alliance unity, and risk management. The dialogue points to a broader pattern: Western governments weighing the potential strategic advantages of enabling Ukrainian counterstrikes against Moscow against the dangers of provoking a wider confrontation with Russia. In this context, officials across the region have continued to weigh potential responses, diplomatic avenues, and the possible consequences for regional and international security frameworks.