In September, the Russian president Vladimir Putin used a question from a state television reporter to send a message to the West. Rumors had circulated that her allies Ukrainiannotably the US, could give Kiev permission to use long-range Western missiles to strike targets deep in the Russia.

Moscow, Putin said at the time according to POLITICO, would take this as a declaration of war by NATO, the US and Europe. “That would fundamentally change the very essence, the nature of the conflict.”had warned.

In late October, the same journalist asked the Russian president if he believed the West had received the warning. “I hope they received it,” Putin replied. Otherwise, he continued, “We’ll have to respond. How; When? Where; It’s too early to talk about that now.”

Three weeks later, the issue is no longer hypothetical.

As outgoing US President Joe Biden’s administration gave Kiev the green light to use long-range ATACMS against Russia, Washington appears to be offering Ukraine the lifeline it has been desperately seeking, just months before US President-elect Donald Trump could radically reduce aid and pressure Ukraine to accept an unfavorable peace deal.

The green light to use long-range missiles is a major turning point in the war, with Washington abandoning its policy of (some critics would say excessive) caution, provoking the Kremlin and testing Moscow’s resolve to defend its own red lines in a war that began and – almost three years on – appears to be in no hurry to end.

Although Western missile systems have already been used in strikes on Russian-held territories such as Crimea, their use to strike targets inside Russia has long been considered taboo for fear of provoking nuclear war. Kiev, for its part, has dismissed these fears as exaggerated, using its invasion of the Russian Kursk region as proof that Moscow’s red lines can be crossed without causing an apocalypse.

Early signs indicate that Moscow will not turn the other cheek on the Biden fold. But surprisingly, few in Russian society, or anywhere else, know what the US decision means in practice.

First reaction

In the first official comments from Moscow on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the use of long-range weapons would mean “a new level of tension and a new situation in terms of US involvement in the conflict.”

Peskov referred to statements made by Putin in September, describing them as “very clear and unambiguous”.

In comments to Russian newspaper RBC, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova similarly referred to Putin’s earlier statements, saying that “the president has spoken on the matter.”

As is often the case when the Kremlin wants to buy time to think about the best possible response, Russian propagandists and mid-level officials were happy to fill the information gap with inflammatory statements.

“The answer could be anything. Anything”Dmitry Kiselyov, the host of Russia’s flagship propaganda news show “Vesty Nedely” on state television, threatened on Sunday night. “There’s a reason we changed our nuclear doctrine”he continued, referring to recent changes that would justify a Russian nuclear response even if hit by conventional weapons. “The US, Britain and France will immediately enter a war with Russia, with all the ensuing consequences for their own lands and those who live there.”he added.

TV personality Sergey Mardan also hinted at a retaliatory response: “As early as tomorrow, the Kremlin is expected to give a detailed answer about which US facilities will be targets for Russian missiles in the event that the Ukrainian armed forces launch attacks on Russian territory”he reported via the Telegram app.

Within the Russian sphere of Telegram chats, the tone has been largely mixed, with some fantasizing about revenge, while others appear to be bracing for a letdown by the country’s leadership.

“What will change for us? Nothing initially. Except that we will become even more determined to destroy the Kiev regime”commenter Yuri Podoliak told his more than 3 million followers. “And maybe, after a while, some Yemeni Houthis will hit or even sink something very modern”he added, hinting that Moscow could choose to retaliate in a proxy conflict elsewhere in the world. “Two can play this game.”

Moscow has also reportedly long supported Houthi attacks on Western ships in the Red Sea.

“The most frightening thing is that there will be no real response to this aggressive move by the US”wrote another blogger, Viktos Alksnis, in an altogether more defeatist tone.

Opportunity for Ukraine

Division also exists within the Russian opposition, reflecting existing rifts over whether supporting Ukraine entails authorizing potentially lethal strikes against its compatriots.

“Can anyone be happy that their country is being bombed? Do such people really exist?” wrote opposition politician Iulia Galiamina in X.

Kiev will likely use the long-range missiles against Russian and possibly North Korean troops in Russia’s Kursk region, military expert Yan Matveyev told opposition TV channel Rain on Monday morning.

Military bases, warehouses and airfields in Russia would also be targets for Ukraine to hit.

Matveyev added that Russian air defenses are currently focused on shooting down Ukrainian drones and that it will likely take several weeks to adjust to shooting down the missiles, giving Kiev a short-lived opportunity to achieve maximum effect.

In his speech late Sunday night, the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky did not deny or confirm initial media reports about the use of ATACMS. However, he stated that: “Strikes are not done with words. Such things are not announced. The rockets will speak for themselves.”

Russia’s response – when Moscow decides what it will be – will likely speak for itself.