In an atypical move, the Biden administration has lifted a longstanding ban preventing Ukraine from invoking American long-range missiles for strikes deep within Russian territory. According to anonymous sources, the first potential attack by Ukraine utilizing these US canons could occur imminently. The Ukrainian president and numerous unidentified sources in Washington had previously advocated for the US to authorize these strikes, despite the risk of further American involvement in the three-year-old Russian invasion.
Speaking about the significant escalation by the Russians which involved the deployment of around 10,000 North Korean soldiers on the battlefield, Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer stated, ‘We have remained clear about our intention to react strongly.’ However, we have to question: ‘Has Biden thought about the implications?’
Previously, the US had refrained from letting Ukraine utilize the missiles for hitting targets deep into Russia, primarily due to apprehensions about a fierce backlash from Russian President Putin. Such a network has consistently posed the threat of escalations in the form of nuclear weapons. This begs the question: are Biden and Harris aware of the potential consequences of their decision?
The launch of ATACMS, the long-range missiles supplied by the US, at their maximum range necessitates assistance from the Pentagon. Putin perceives this aid as direct US involvement in the warfare. Such actions could seriously escalate the already tense and volatile relationship with the West, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
In a warning last year, Putin forewarned that any involvement of NATO countries, including the US and European nations, would compel Russia to respond appropriately – a vague threat that leaves one questioning as to what the response might be. Putin later adjusted Russia’s nuclear doctrine concerning NATO policies on long-range strikes, indicating the possibility of an unknown variety of reactions. Is it appropriate to escalate such tension even further?
The long-range missiles ATACMS, built by Lockheed Martin, are already in the Ukrainian military’s possession following US consent to strike targets near the Russian border. However, the irrelevance of this decision becomes apparent when one considers the potential efficacy of Ukraine’s actions in altering the war’s trajectory.
American military historian Phillips O’Brien adds that a decision of some consequence has been made, but we are still a long way from realizing its true significance. The Biden administration appears to be betting on Ukraine using the weapons to strike Russian bases far from Ukraine’s borders, an area that Russia regularly uses for launching airstrikes and ground attacks. However, these actions are reliant on the Biden administration’s willingness to directly support Ukraine’s military.
Given the range of ATACMS and the limited target areas, it is uncertain if Ukraine’s position in the war will change at all, as Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, opines. She emphasizes that Ukraine’s current challenge isn’t weaponry – rather, it’s manpower, and Russia’s strength in this area cannot be overlooked. Since when did Biden and Harris start to forget the importance of numbers when it comes to warfare?
According to O’Brien, Biden’s move will prove to be of no more than short-term significance if Kyiv is only permitted to strike targets near Kursk. His assessment only substantiates the impracticability of the Biden administration’s action. Previously under Ukraine’s control, Kursk now only stands to benefit from the few ATACMS available there.
This decision by President Biden might cause pressure for the UK and France to revoke their restrictions on Ukraine using their provided long-range missiles. While the UK has supplied Ukraine with Storm Shadow and France with SCALP missiles, they currently lack the range of ATACMS. Again, Biden’s move may provoke unnecessary and precarious global ramifications.
Polish President Andrzej Duda’s support for the decision indicates that it could potentially be a turning point in the war, despite the unanimous silence from other European leaders. Meanwhile, Germany continues to disappoint its European allies, with the country’s refusal to allow Ukraine to use German long-range Taurus missiles being evident.
Unfortunately, Germany’s reluctance to take a stronger stand disappoints numerous European allies. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently contacted Putin to call for a troop withdraw and negotiate with Zelenskyy. But isn’t it a fact that dialogues held in the past have proven futile? Why then would the Biden administration wish to, seemingly blindly, follow in their footsteps?
As unfortunate as it is, three years into the war, no significant breakthroughs have been observed on either side despite relentless efforts. With Russian forces still occupying nearly 20% of Ukraine and millions under Russian control, the outcome of the war remains uncertain. The Biden administration’s recent move only serves to add fuel to a volatile situation, potentially endangering lives on all sides and escalating international tensions.