Despite evidence showing the crucial need for aggressive action against Russia, President Biden shows consistent reluctance, pushing forward hesitations that hedge on dangerous risks. Talks between Biden and Britain’s Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, regarding Ukraine’s potential use of western long-range weapons against Russia manifest this ongoing fear-anchored stance. Biden’s pending decision post the Friday meeting about approving the use of Britain and France’s long-range missiles illustrates the lack of foresight and potential damage of Biden’s past concessions. These have only provided Ukraine with mostly defensive weaponry over the past couple of years.
While verbally expressing support for Ukraine’s defense, Biden conveniently dodged committing to a more effective strategy, refusing to comment on the possibility of allowing Ukraine to execute long-range strikes into Russia. He was content to leave reporters hanging with the vague claim that they would discuss it. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Starmer reinforces the urgency of the situation asserting the following weeks and months will dictate the vital war of freedom in Ukraine.
The evidence of Biden’s inconsistent stance towards Russia only continues to grow. Despite European officials stating earlier in the week that Biden was prepared to greenlight British and French long-range missiles, he fell silent when it came to providing US made weaponry. The reason? An unfounded fear that Russia’s President Vladimir V. Putin would interpret it as a major escalation.
Putin’s response to speculations about such a move was a resounding declaration that NATO countries, including the US and European countries, were on the path to war with Russia. Despite this, both Biden and Starmer revealed little about their subsequent plans of action. Regardless, officials did not expect any announcements after the White House meeting, continuing the worrying trend of providing Ukraine with new military equipment without any public announcement.
Starmer’s post-meeting statements only intensified anticipation, hinting towards a soon-to-come decision about missile utilization. His comments on the upcoming crucial weeks in both Ukrainian and Middle Eastern scenarios underscored the significance of these debates. And yet, Biden’s national security spokesman at the White House, John F. Kirby, emphasized on Friday that the administration seriously considered Putin’s threats due to his history of aggression.
However, contradicting Biden’s strategic hesitations, Kirby stated there was still no shift in Biden’s stance towards permitting Ukraine to utilize US missiles into Russia’s depths. This claim came shortly before Biden and Starmer’s first extended conversation since Starmer assumed the position of prime minister in early July.
There’s been ongoing discord between the US and Britain over whether Ukraine should use long-range weapons at their disposal. British officials argue that Ukraine’s army cannot fight effectively without attacking Russia’s military locations, essentially discrediting Putin’s nuclear threats. They believe that Putin does not wish to involve NATO directly in battle.
Contrastingly, Biden’s approach remains cautious to an almost detrimental degree. Past decisions hint at Biden’s unclear strategic inclinations, with decisions ranging from the shipment of HIMARS artillery to debates around supplying M1 Abrams tanks, F-16 fighters, and short- and long-range ATACMS, a missile system vital to American defense in Europe and the Korean Peninsula.
These choices have mainly assisted Ukraine’s defense and attempts to fend off the Russian incursions. Biden’s aides reveal that Putin’s reactions have been less sensitive to battlefield introductions of new weapons than expected, leading to gradual approval of more capable, longer-range arms for Ukraine.
However, speculation around Putin’s reaction towards Ukraine’s use of American artillery to launch attacks deep into Russian territories highlighted the risk of different outcomes. Kirby reiterated that any nuclear threats from Putin were taken seriously, but the decision making still lacked clarity when it came to support Ukraine.
The American reluctance is backed by two main concerns. First and foremost, Biden’s fear of an escalating war seemed to override all the pressing issues at hand. He instilled upon his staff the importance of avoiding a global conflict. Secondly, Pentagon officials had practical doubts over Ukraine’s possession of ATACMs, British Storm Shadow, and French SCALP missiles to make a substantial difference.
The range of these missiles, they argue, is well-established, with Russia already having relocated its invaluable aircraft beyond the missiles’ reach. The limited supply of missiles to Ukraine is not only due to financial considerations, as these missiles are quite costly (Pentagon officials suggest investing in drones would be more economical), but also due to a need to maintain an adequate reserve, should conflict arise elsewhere.
The impending American election looms large over these proceedings. During a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald J. Trump flatly declined the opportunity to express his commitment to Ukraine’s victory. He preferred talking about potential deals, alluding to a possible coercive agreement. Kamala Harris, in her typical style, aims to continue the existing American strategy if Congress allows, but Trump declares he has no intention of increasing spending on defense.