The U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to launch American weapons deeper into Russia has not increased the risk of a nuclear attack, which is unlikely despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric, five sources familiar with the situation told Reuters. American secret services.

But Russia is likely to expand a sabotage campaign against European targets to increase pressure on the West to support Kiev, two senior officials, a lawmaker and two congressional aides briefed on the matter said.

A series of intelligence assessments over the past seven months have concluded that nuclear escalation is unlikely to result from the decision to ease restrictions on US arms use by Ukraine. That view has not changed since President Joe Biden’s shift in the U.S. stance this month on weapons, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely about sensitive information.

“The assessments were consistent: ATACMs were not going to change Russia’s nuclear calculations,” noted a congressional aide briefed on the information, referring to the US missiles with a range of up to 190 miles (306 kilometers).

Russia’s launch of a new ballistic missile (Oreshnik) last week, which analysts say was intended as a warning to Washington and its European allies, did not change that conclusion.

One of the five U.S. officials said Washington believes Russia will not seek to escalate its nuclear forces, but will try to act in proportion to what it sees as U.S. escalation. The official added that the launch of the new missile was part of that effort.

U.S. officials said the information helped decide a divisive debate in recent months within the Biden administration over whether easing Ukraine’s restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons was worth the risk of angering Putin.

Some officials initially resisted such a prospect, citing concerns of escalation and uncertainty about how Putin would respond. Some of those officials, including White House, Pentagon and State Department officials, feared lethal retaliation against US military and diplomatic personnel and attacks on NATO allies.

Others were specifically concerned about nuclear escalation. Biden changed his mind because of North Korea’s entry into the war before the US presidential election, US officials said.

Some officials now believe that concerns about escalation, including nuclear fears, were overblown, but make clear that the overall situation in Ukraine remains dangerous and that nuclear escalation is not out of the question. Russia’s ability to find other covert ways to retaliate against the West remains a concern.

“Russia’s hybrid response is worrisome,” said Angela Stendt, director of Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University, referring to Russian sabotage in Europe.

“The possibility of escalation was never there. The concern now is greater.”

The White House and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment on the US intelligence estimates.

Action, reaction and new reaction

Since August, when Ukraine launched a surprise invasion of Russia’s Kursk region, Moscow and Kiev have been locked in a vicious cycle of escalating moves, responses and retaliation.

Russia has asked for help from North Korea, which has sent 11,000 to 12,000 troops to help its war effort, according to the United States. On the same day, in Ukraine’s first strike since the US de-escalation, Russia changed its nuclear doctrine, lowering the criteria for a nuclear strike.

The fear of nuclear escalation has been a factor in the thinking of US officials since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. CIA Director William Burns pointed out that there was a real risk in late 2022 that Russia would use nuclear weapons against Ukrainian.

Even so, the White House moved to help Ukraine, sending billions of dollars worth of military aid.

Concerns faded for some officials as Putin did not follow through on his nuclear threats, but they remained central to officials weighing decisions on how the U.S. should support Kiev.

In May, the White House allowed Ukraine to use US missiles in limited circumstances to strike across the border but not deep into Russia, citing a risk of escalation from Moscow, limited tactical benefit and a limited supply of ATACMs.

One intelligence assessment from early summer, drawn up at the request of the White House, explained that strikes across the border from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv would have limited impact because 90 percent of Russian aircraft had moved away from borders – and could not be hit by short-range missiles.

But the assessments also noted that while Putin frequently threatens to use nuclear weapons, Moscow is unlikely to take such a step in part because they do not provide clear
military benefit. Intelligence officials described the nuclear option as a last resort for Russia and that Putin would first resort to other means of retaliation, noting that Russia had already engaged in sabotage and cyberattacks.

But some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon argued that allowing Kiev to use the missiles to strike inside Russia would put Kiev, the US and US allies in unprecedented danger, prompting Putin to respond either through nuclear power or other lethal tactics outside the war zone.

Pentagon officials are concerned about attacks on US military bases.

The North Korea factor

The deployment of North Korean troops at the front convinced the Biden administration, particularly a group of officials in the White House and Pentagon worried about escalation, to allow the long-range strikes, a senior US official said.

Russia had made gains on the battlefield and the North Korean troops were seen internally as an escalation by Moscow that required a response from Washington, the official noted.

Given early intelligence assessments that downplayed the risk of nuclear escalation, stressing that nuclear fears were overstated, the decision to allow wider use of ATACMs came too late, a senior US official and lawmaker said, citing Russia’s recent advances.

Intelligence sources say that Moscow’s most powerful and successful retaliatory operations are likely to be carried out through sabotage. Russian intelligence services have launched a massive international effort in Europe to intimidate countries that support Ukraine, a European diplomat said.

A US official added that Moscow is actively trying to promote a “grey zone” war against the West, and that Russia has an extensive network of agents and is exploring options for their use.