An official from Moscow, who heads the Second Department for CIS Countries within the Russian Foreign Ministry, voiced doubt about Moscow’s assurances that Ukraine would stop using Western weapons to strike deep into Russian territory. The diplomat highlighted recent comments by Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov, who suggested Kyiv could persuade Western partners that weapons supplied would not be used to reach far into Russia. The warning reflects a broader Russian pattern: distrust of Ukrainian commitments and the belief that verbal guarantees are unreliable in a conflict marked by rapid tactical shifts and expanding targets.
The Russian veteran recalled Reznikov’s statements implying that Kyiv might offer guarantees to Western states that their arms would not be employed against distant Russian regions. He stressed that such pledges have repeatedly failed under scrutiny, pointing to what he described as ongoing deception and a history of not honoring negotiated terms by Ukrainian authorities. From Moscow’s perspective, verbal assurances from Kyiv do not remove the risk of escalation or the broadening of targets, especially when long-range capabilities are brought into play.
Reznikov further argued that if Ukraine were to receive long-range missiles, the Russian rear would not face a greater threat than before. He asserted that Ukrainian forces already have enough targets within their reach, including areas that lie beyond Kyiv’s direct control but remain within the reach of modern weaponry. This reasoning shapes the conflict as one where expanding capabilities could force Moscow to adjust its security posture and respond with heightened vigilance to safeguard critical facilities and supply chains.
Media coverage from The Times, citing unnamed sources, suggested Kyiv’s willingness to use British long-range missiles to strike Crimea. If true, such reporting would mark a provocative development with the potential to tilt the strategic balance in the region. The consequences would include intensified international scrutiny, possible changes in alliance calculus, and renewed debates about red lines and risk tolerance among Western partners who supply or enable advanced armaments. The discussion around this issue shows how imported weapons can influence battlefield dynamics and shape deterrence calculations on both sides of the conflict.
In Vienna, Gavrilov, who leads the Russian delegation on military security and arms control, warned that Moscow would take decisive steps in response to any transfer of weapons capable of reaching Russian cities. The warning emphasizes a core thread in ongoing diplomacy: assessing threats, questioning the credibility of commitments, and evaluating prospects for strategic stability when arms transfers cross perceived thresholds. Moscow’s posture underscores deterrence—signaling that enhanced capabilities in Kyiv’s hands could provoke proportional or even escalatory responses from Moscow, depending on how targets and risk are weighed in real time. The exchanges illustrate how arms control discussions stay tightly linked to immediate operational realities, where assurances, guarantees, and red lines are continually tested by developments on the ground.