The Kremlin has criticised President Joe Biden for adding “fuel to the fire” after giving Ukraine permission to launch US missiles into Russia.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: “It is obvious that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to… continue adding fuel to the fire and provoking further escalation of tensions around this conflict.”
Russia‘s Foreign Ministry added that the action by Mr Biden‘s administration would fundamentally alter the nature of the war and trigger “an adequate and tangible” response.
The UK has refused to reveal if it plans to follow suit, for example extending the use of British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine to hit targets inside Russia.
Britain’s Defence Secretary John Healey told the House of Commons commenting would “compromise operations and security”, adding that he will speak with the US and Ukrainian defence secretaries on Monday evening.
At the G20 Summit in Brazil, Sir Keir Starmer gave a similar response: “I’m not going to get into operational details because the only winner, if we were to do that, is [Vladimir] Putin, and I’m not prepared to do that.”
For over a year Ukraine has been calling on America changes its policy on the use of long-range missiles.
Donald Trump Jr,the son of president-elect Donald Trump,suggested in a post on X that Mr Biden was risking a third world war “before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:04
The use of tactical missile systems for Ukraine
Hungary: Policy is ‘astonishingly dangerous’
There has been a strong, but mixed, reaction across Europe to America’s change of policy.
Hungary’s foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, said the decision was “astonishingly dangerous” – although the country’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban has a close and often sympathetic relationship with Moscow.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Slovakia’s leader Robert Fico, who has also fostered a stronger relationship with his Russian counterpart, said it was an “unprecedented escalation of tensions” and “a decision that thwarts hopes for the start of any peace talks”.
But other countries have been more positive.
Polish President Andrzej Duda said: “This decision was very necessary… Russia sees that Ukraine enjoys strong support and that the West’s position is unyielding and determined.”
Meanwhile, Estonia’s foreign minister Margus Tsahkna was equally positive. He said easing restrictions on Ukraine was “a good thing”, adding: “We have been saying that from the beginning – that no restrictions must be put on the military support [for Ukraine].”
How could Russia respond?
In the past, Russia’s president has mentioned sending weapons to the West’s adversaries to strike Western targets abroad. He didn’t mention any nations specifically, but the assumption was it was a reference to Iran.
Moscow has also recently changed its nuclear doctrine, to allow it in theory to respond with nuclear weapons if the West attacks targets on Russian soil.
So are these threats genuine? Or is it more sabre-rattling?
The calculus in Washington seems to be that this is another bluff from Moscow, following the obliteration of previous red lines without consequence.
The West has supplied missiles, battle tanks and fighter jets to Kyiv, all without invoking the escalation that was threatened.
But could Russia respond in other, more subtle ways, which it doesn’t want to broadcast? Think sabotage, cyber attacks, closer alignment with Iran (and of course North Korea).
So in that sense, it’s not the Kremlin’s public fury the West will be worried about, it’s what happens behind the scenes.
Missiles are ‘not a game changer’
Former British ambassador to Russia Sir Toby Brenton has told Sky News: “Nobody is really expecting this to be a game changer.
“They’re expecting it to make life more difficult for the Russians, slow the Russian advance down, but… from all the stories I’m hearing, there are not actually that many of these missiles available to be used.”
Syria has carried out pre-emptive operations targeting Islamic State cells – arresting 71 people during 61 raids.
Explosives and weapons were seized, with the interior ministry revealing they were working on “precise” intelligence information.
“Many” of those detained were wanted criminals, with forces obtaining evidence that linked them to terrorist activities.
A statement added that the operation was part of “ongoing national efforts to combat terrorism and confront plots targeting the country’s security and citizens”.
The raids come as Syrian President Ahmed al Sharaa travels to Washington for a meeting with Donald Trump, where he will join a coalition against IS.
Meanwhile, the US is preparing to establish a military presence in Damascus to enable a security pact that is being brokered between Syria and Israel.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, officials intercepted information that suggested Islamic State was planning to launch new attacks.
More on Islamic State
Related Topics:
Interior ministry spokesman Nour al Din al Baba told al Ekhbariya: “The current major threat lies in IS’ attempts to reconstitute itself and recruit new members, particularly among the youth.”
Since then, al Sharaa’s transitional administration has been attempting to restore security, introduce economic reforms, and cooperate with international partners.
On Friday, the UK and US removed sanctions against al Sharaa – following in the footsteps of the UN Security Council.
The State Department said this was “in recognition of the progress demonstrated by the Syrian leadership”, including work to counter narcotics and eliminate chemical weapons.
Al Sharaa had faced a travel ban, asset freeze and an arms embargo for well over a decade because he was previously affiliated with al Qaeda.
Israeli troops in Gaza have received the remains of another hostage.
They have now been taken to the National Institute for Forensic Medicine to be examined.
If it is confirmed that they belong to a hostage, this would mean there are five bodies left to be returned under the terms of a ceasefire that began on 10 October.
Israel has also released the bodies of 285 Palestinians – but this identification process is harder because DNA labs are not allowed in Gaza.
Last night’s transfer is a sign of progress in the fragile truce, but some of the remains handed over in recent weeks have not belonged to any of the missing hostages.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:31
October: Heavy machinery enters Gaza to clear rubble
At times, Israel has accused Hamas of violating the agreement – however, US President Donald Trump has previously acknowledged conditions on the ground in Gaza are difficult.
Meanwhile, UN officials have warned the levels of humanitarian aid flowing into the territory fall well short of what Palestinians require.
Deputy spokesperson Farhan Haqq said more than 200,000 metric tons of aid is positioned to move in – but only 37,000 tons has arrived so far.
Earlier on Friday, hundreds of mourners attended the military funeral of an Israeli-American soldier whose body was returned on Sunday.
Image: Omer Neutra was an Israeli-American soldier. Pic: AP
Captain Omer Neutra was 21 when he was killed by Hamas militants who then took his body into Gaza following the October 7th attacks.
Admiral Brad Cooper, who heads up US Central Command, said during the service: “He is the son of two nations.
“He embodied the best of both the United States and Israel. Uniquely, he has firmly cemented his place in history as the hero of two countries.”
His mother Orna addressed her son’s coffin – and said: “We are all left with the vast space between who you were to us and to the world in your life and what you were yet to become. And with the mission to fill that gap with the light and goodness that you are.”
Image: IDF troops carry the coffin of hostage Omer Neutra. Pic: AP
In other developments, Turkish prosecutors have issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 36 other Israeli officials on charges of carrying out “genocide” in Gaza.
They have been accused of crimes against humanity – but the move is highly symbolic since these officials were unlikely to enter Turkey.
Foreign minister Gideon Saar dismissed the warrants, and said: “Israel firmly rejects, with contempt, the latest PR stunt by the tyrant Erdogan.”
In Soviet times, Western observers would scrutinise video footage of state occasions, like military parades on Red Square, to try to learn more about Kremlin hierarchy.
Who was positioned closest to the leader? What did the body language say? Which officials were in and out of favour?
In some ways, not much has changed.
The footage present-day Kremlinologists are currently pouring over is from Wednesday’s landmark meeting of Russia’s Security Council, in which Vladimir Putin told his top officials to start drafting proposals for a possible nuclear weapons test.
It was an important moment. Not one you’d expect a trusted lieutenant to miss. But Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s veteran foreign minister, was conspicuously absent – the only permanent member of the Council not present.
According to the Russian business daily, Kommersant, his absence was “coordinated”.
More on Russia
Related Topics:
Image: US President Donald Trump meets with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Pic: AP
Image: Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio in Alaska. Pic: AP
That episode alone would have been enough to raise eyebrows.
But coupled with the selection of a more junior official to lead the Russian delegation at the upcoming G20 summit (a role Lavrov has filled in recent years) – well, that’s when questions get asked, namely: Has Moscow’s top diplomat been sidelined?
The question has grown loud enough to force the Kremlin into a denial, but it’s done little to quell speculation that Lavrov has fallen out of favour.
Image: Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. File pic: Reuters
Rumours of a rift have been mounting since Donald Trump called off a planned summit with Putin in Budapest last month, following a phone call between Lavrov and US secretary of state Marco Rubio.
According to the Financial Times, it was Lavrov’s uncompromising stance that prompted the White House to put the summit on ice.
Conversations I had with diplomatic sources here at the time revealed a belief that Lavrov had either dropped the ball or gone off-script. Whether it was by accident or by design, his diplomacy (or lack of it) torpedoed the summit and seemingly set back a US-Russia rapprochement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:19
September: Anyone downing aircraft in Russian airspace will ‘regret it’
That would’ve angered Putin, who is keen to engage with Washington, not only on Ukraine but on other issues, like nuclear arms control.
More importantly, perhaps, it made the Russian president appear weak – unable to control his foreign minister. And Putin is not a man who likes to be undermined.
Football fans will be familiar with Sir Alex Ferguson’s golden rule of management: Never let a player grow bigger than the club. Putin operates in a similar fashion. Loyalty is valued extremely highly.
Image: Lavrov meets with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in 2015. Pic: Reuters
Image: North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and Lavrov meet in Pyongyang in 2023. Pic: AP
Image: Lavrov and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi meet in Indonesia in 2022. Pic: Reuters
If Lavrov has indeed been sidelined, it would be a very significant moment indeed. The 75-year-old has been the face of Russian diplomacy for more than two decades and effectively Putin’s right-hand man for most of the Kremlin leader’s rule.
Known for his abrasive style and acerbic putdowns, Lavrov has also been a vociferous cheerleader for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
And in the melee that immediately followed the presidents’ press statements at the summit, I remember racing over to Lavrov as he was leaving and yelling a question to him through the line of security guards.
He didn’t even turn. Instead, he just shouted back: “Who are you?”
It was typical of a diplomatic heavyweight, who’s known for not pulling his punches. But has that uncompromising approach finally taken its toll?