Despite being late in the game, there has been a recent shift in American policy concerning the conflict in Kursk, Ukraine, fueled by international dynamics and internal political pressure. Prior restraint from the US regarding Ukraine’s use of American missiles against targets deep within Russia saw a drastic change. This shift was primarily due to North Korea’s involvement in the war, aligning themselves with Russia, a development that necessarily provoked a strong reaction from the global community. Equating this change, a political source stressed, is the result of mounting pressure post the election on November 5, which came to bear especially on decisions involving Ukraine’s defense.
President Biden was initially reticent regarding Ukraine’s use of US-supplied ATACM missiles, capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, despite insistent pleas from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. This defensive strategy transformed when North Korean troops began to populate Russia’s Kursk region, marking an alarming escalation of this conflict. Critics, however, have cast doubts on the President’s calculated support for Ukraine, bringing further scrutiny to this decisive foreign policy move.
A significant concern raised in this context was Biden’s wavering support for Ukraine’s military aid. This ambiguity was seen as a potentially detrimental roadblock that may halt weapon supply, leaving Ukraine in a vulnerable position. Although the White House remained tight-lipped about this matter and did not comment, it was evident that the escalating conflict, primarily due to Russia’s deployment of North Korean troops, required immediate action.
Russia, feeling threatened by the West’s infiltration, pledged a firm response to these maneuvers. American officials seemed to take note of this as they highlighted Russia’s possible use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile against the Ukrainian city, Dnipro. This was perceived as a serious warning sign to NATO from Russia.
Over time, the US adjusted its policy on weapon use, relayed through high-level communication between the Defense Secretary of the US and Ukraine’s Defense Minister, thereby strengthening Ukraine’s hands. The decision was shared with the NATO Secretary-General and key European officials on a visit to Brussels by Secretary of State, highlighting the shift in American foreign policy.
Under this new strategy, Ukraine conducted the first long-range strike, using American ATACMs on a Russian arms depot, over 110 km inside Russian territory. Following this, the easing of sanctions on weapons allowed Ukraine to use British Storm Shadow cruise missiles against Russia, highlighting the growing seriousness of the situation.
Post-election, the Biden administration drew further criticism by allowing the use of anti-personnel mines in an attempt to impede Russia’s advances into Eastern Ukraine. US defense contractors were also permitted to repair US-supplied weapons within Ukraine, an act seen by many as enabling Ukrainians to maintain their combat readiness more efficiently.
In this backdrop, Ukraine’s inability to target the airbases on Russian soil, which were central to strikes on Ukraine, seemed like a significant setback. Ukrainian officials sought permission to use 190-mile range rockets against these sites unsuccessfully. Critics here again, didn’t fail to highlight Biden’s lack of decisive action.
Some administration officials cast dubious glances at the practicality of Ukraine’s proposed use of weapons like ATACMs. There was a belief that Moscow had already relocated some of the bombing targets and Ukraine’s domestically made rockets and drones were sufficient for counter-attacks. Additionally, the potential for a direct war between NATO and Russia served as another cause for concern for some actors.
However, North Korea’s commitment to send thousands of troops to join in the fight tipped the scales against these concerns. In October, instances of North Korean troops in Russia for potential assignment to the Ukraine conflict were noted. The troops, originating from North Korea’s Wonsan region, were seen at military training sites in eastern Russia, post docking at the port city of Vladivostok.
As Ukraine continued to hold the Kursk territory since August despite the assistance of an estimated 8,000 North Korean forces to Russia, the US attempted to alleviate Ukraine’s military restrictions. The purpose was to signal to North Korea and Russia that their aggressive tactics would not be tolerated. This, however, played into fears of potential further escalation of the conflict.
The administration was cautious about the risk of escalating the conflict even further by relaxing these restrictions. It was clarified that Russia had not initiated any actions against countries other than Ukraine. Furthermore, Biden’s administration was criticized again for seemingly limited strategic support; an aide mentioned the new policy only applied to the Kursk region.
The aide further asserted that Ukraine was only authorized to counter the combined Russian-North Korean push within Russian territory, yet another indication of Biden’s lack of firm stand in this international crisis. Critics question his ability to understand and address this dynamic situation effectively, which continues to evolve, impacting nations and their relationships.