Matt Wickham
On the eve of November 17, marking the 999th day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the New York Times reported a long-awaited decision: the White House had given the “green light” for Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory. Ukrainian channels erupted in celebration, while the Kremlin’s reaction was as predictable as it was dramatic. Kremlin-loyal Telegram channels flooded with shock, outrage, and nuclear fear-mongering, framing the move as a dangerous escalation. The frenzy from Russian channels was amplified when France’s Le Figaro claimed that the UK and France had followed suit.
By morning, after a night of pro-Kremlin panic, Le Figaro retracted its report, giving Russian propagandists fresh ammunition to dismiss the West’s actions as a weak “test run” to gauge just how malleable Putin’s red lines truly are. Confusing clarifications followed: Biden’s approval “probably” extended only to strikes in Ukrainian-occupied areas within the Kursk region— detail that devalued the strategic significance of the White House decision
Too Little, Too Late or Master Escalation Managment?
The U.S’s decision is a noteworthy development, but its timing raises questions about its strategic impact. Months ago, this move could have been far more significant, as critical Russian military infrastructure and aviation assets were positioned closer to the front lines. Now, much of this has been relocated beyond the reach of Ukraine’s current weaponry, even with the new long-range green light. This shift may be part of a deliberate escalation management strategy by Washington, allowing Russia time to adapt to the possible implications.
With the newly supplied 300km-range ATACMS missiles, Ukraine can now target up to 13 smaller aerodromes on Russian territory, but their impact is likely to focus on the Kursk region. This would serve as a calculated warning to both Russia and North Korea, signalling from the White House that Russia’s escalations will not go unchallenged.
The retraction of Le Figaro’s article signals that we shouldn’t expect Storm Shadow or SCALP missiles to target deep into Russia anytime soon. The Storm Shadow, which requires precise topographic maps and American technology to bypass Russian air defences, has not seen additional supplies from the UK for over six months, as President Zelensky pointed out earlier last week. It seems the U.S. is withholding the necessary technology to prevent Kyiv from striking into Russia without approval. This aligns with President Biden’s cautious escalation strategy, designed to avoid further provoking Russia, particularly with strikes that could escalate the war.
The US’s primary interest remains supporting Ukraine and containing Russia’s aggression, rather than seeking a decisive military victory. Experts like Anatoli Khrapchinsky emphasise that all weaponry provided to Ukraine aims to help it hold its ground, not win. Vitalii Portnikov, a Ukrainian political commentator, adds that the West’s goal is to turn Ukraine into a “fortress,” gradually depleting Russia’s military capabilities while keeping it engaged in Ukraine, thus preventing Russia from destabilising other regions.
Russian Propaganda Reactions:
Ukraine’s Green Light Confusion
Ukraine’s history with the green light for long-range strikes has been confusing, tiresome at best. This is not the first time we’ve heard that Ukraine has been granted the right to strike Russia, only for a subsequent clarification to limit, redact, and backtrack.
The first notable example occurred when David Cameron, then UK Foreign Secretary, gave the green light for Ukraine to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory—a claim initially published by Reuters but quickly retracted. Russian propaganda, particularly the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, seized this opportunity, using the incident to push a narrative that Western media is easily manipulated and controlled by elites who can erase information at will, arguing that the West is neither democratic nor transparent. Now, with reports from Le Figaro claiming that France and the UK had given similar approval and then retracted, we’re seeing the same strategy play out.
Less than 24 hours later and the narrative shifted, with Russian channels accusing the West of performing a “full 180” and claiming the initial green light was just a “test” to see how flexible Putin’s red lines are.
One channel mocked, “It seems Putin’s ‘red lines’ have been probed in their most sensitive contours—and then left alone. Welcome to decadence. Shall we dive in together?” Another, “Not even a day has passed, and they’ve already backtracked. Their ‘permission’ now only covers the Kursk region. Modern politics boils down to a simple, primitive formula: a dog that barks will not bite.”
“The West Esclates—WW3 is about to begin”
Russian propaganda channels wasted no time issuing threats of World War III, peppering their rhetoric with apocalyptic references to the film Don’t Look Up. The film, which depicts a catastrophic, world-ending meteor strike preventable by action but ignored due to political stupidity (particularly by Western leaders), serves as a thinly metaphor for Kremlin “warnings.” This mirrors Putin’s earlier declarations that “this would completely change the state of the war, as Ukraine is incapable of carrying out such attacks without Western involvement.” This is a narrative the Kremlin has clung to throughout this conflict whenever Ukraine outmanoeuvres Russia strategically.
Losing to Ukraine militarily is a humiliation the so-called second-most powerful nation in the world refuses to accept, especially when it has been beaten by its “little brother.”
Comments such as “This whole circus around the ‘nuclear issue’ is starting to resemble the plot of the prophetic film “Don’t Look Up” and “It seems the reality of nuclear war is finally being taken seriously by all our experts,” alongside “If you haven’t watched it, now’s the time,” by one Kremlin-backed telegram channel, encapsulate the tone of their messaging.
It’s fearmongering mixed with conspiracy theories and pop culture references, all aimed at diverting attention from any meaningful military or reliable analysis of what it actually means.
The main counterpoint to any claims that “the West escalates” is that today marks the 1,000th day of Russia’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The aggression is undeniably Russian, and the timeline is clear: 1,000 days of war initiated and perpetuated by the Kremlin. Moreover, on the eve of this so-called “green light” news—labelled an escalation by propaganda—Russia launched a missile into a residential building in Sumy, killing over 12 civilians. This attack followed a morning of nationwide missile strikes, one of the largest since the war began. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of North Korean troops have reportedly built up in the Russian-occupied Kursk region, with news emerging that North Korea could send an additional 100,000 troops to support Russia.
As political commentator Vlad Vlexer noted, “To suggest he [Biden] is fanning the flames of global war is a deeply flawed analysis. One of President Biden’s defining features has been his prioritisation of nuclear concerns—first, second, and third—in his Ukraine policy.”
Netflix as a Russian Source of Political Analysis
Propaganda outlets, amplified by Trump followers and Russian sympathisers on X, are claiming that recent events are a coordinated effort to undermine Trump’s presidency, derail his negotiations, and prevent him from reclaiming power.
On X, Donald Trump Jr. added fuel to this narrative, stating, “The Military-Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.”
Whereas it was on Telegram that Sergey Markov, one of the Kremlin’s most “imaginative” propagandists, echoed similar derailing claims, alleging that the Democrats are escalating the conflict in Ukraine to cling to power. Markov’s conspiratorial rhetoric is nothing new; after Trump’s election win, he wrote, “We’ll see if he even becomes president,” implying that the U.S. Democratic establishment would stop at nothing—legal or otherwise—to prolong the war and maintain power.
His claims, like those of other propagandists, seem to be based on Netflix political thrillers, such as House of Cards Season 4 final episode where the president falsely announces war only to remain in power.
Moments after the news emerged, Markov wrote: “The goal of Biden’s escalation in Ukraine could be to block the transfer of power to Trump.”
He outlines a dramatic and implausible plan: provoke a harsh Russian response through waves of military provocation, accuse Russia of pushing NATO into direct conflict, impose martial law in NATO countries, and link Trump to Moscow under the guise of protecting national security. This supposed scheme would culminate in NATO allies pressuring Washington to deny Trump power.
It’s debatable whether even the Russian people would take these narratives seriously. After all, Markov is primarily used as a propagandist sharing narratives overseas through his online radio appearances seen time from time on British airwaves. The narrative, similar to that of Trump Jr., is aimed at exploiting American political divisions. This aligns with the Kremlin’s earlier ambitions to cause chaos and riots in the United States—a promise that ultimately failed to materialise following the presidential elections, much to the Kremlin’s disappointment.