US Authorization for Ukraine to Strike Inside Russia: A Game Changer in the War?
US officials say President Biden has given the green light for Ukraine to use long-range missiles supplied by Washington to strike deep inside Russia.
Washington had previously refused to allow such strikes with US-made ATACMS missiles because it feared they would escalate the war.
The major policy reversal comes two months before President Joe Biden hands over power to Donald Trump, whose election has raised fears over the future of US support for Kyiv.
Why has the US allowed Ukraine use long-range missiles inside Russia?
Ukraine has been using the Army Tactical Missile System, more commonly known as ATACMS, on Russian targets in occupied Ukrainian territory for more than a year.
But the US has never allowed Kyiv to use the missiles inside Russia – until now.
The Lockheed Martin ballistic missiles are some of the most powerful so far provided to Ukraine, capable of travelling up to 300km (186 miles).
Ukraine had argued that not being allowed to use such weapons inside Russia was like being asked to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
The change in policy reportedly comes in response to the recent deployment of North Korean troops to support Russia in the Kursk border region, where Ukraine has occupied territory since August.
Also, Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House is raising fears over the future of US support for Ukraine, and President Biden is apparently keen to do all he can to help in the little time he has left in office.
Strengthening Ukraine’s hand militarily – so the thinking goes – could grant Ukraine leverage in any peace talks that may lie ahead.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not yet confirmed the move. But he said on Sunday: “Strikes are not made with words … The missiles will speak for themselves.”
What effect will the missiles have on the battlefield?
Ukraine will now be able to strike targets inside Russia, most likely at first around the Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces hold over 1,000 sq km of territory.
Ukrainian and US officials expect a counter-offensive by Russian and North Korean troops to regain territory in Kursk.
Ukraine may use ATACMS to defend against the assault, targeting Russian positions including military bases, infrastructure and ammunition storage.
The supply of the missiles will probably not be enough to turn the tide of the war. Russian military equipment, such as jets, has already been moved to airfields further inside Russia in anticipation of such a decision.
But the weapons may grant Ukraine some advantage at a time when Russian troops have been gaining ground in the country’s east and morale is low.
“I don’t think it will be decisive,” a Western diplomat in Kyiv told the BBC, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
“However, it’s an overdue symbolic decision to raise the stakes and demonstrate military support to Ukraine.
“It can raise the war cost for Russia.”
There are also questions over how much ammunition will be provided, said Evelyn Farkas, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defence in the Obama administration.
“The question is, of course, how many missiles do they have? We have heard that the Pentagon has warned there aren’t that many of these missiles that they can make available to Ukraine.”
Farkas added that the ATACMS could have a “positive psychological impact” in Ukraine if they are used to strike targets such as the Kerch Bridge, which links Crimea to mainland Russia.
The US authorisation will also have a further knock-on effect: potentially enabling the UK and France to grant Ukraine permission to use Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia. Storm Shadow is a Franco-British long-range cruise missile with similar capabilities to the American ATACMS.
Could it lead to escalation of the war?
The Biden administration had for months refused to authorise Ukraine to hit Russia with long-range missiles, fearing escalation of the conflict.
Vladimir Putin has warned against allowing Western weapons to be used to hit Russia, saying Moscow would view that as the “direct participation” of Nato countries in the war in Ukraine.
“It would substantially change the very essence, the nature of the conflict,” Putin said in September. “This will mean that Nato countries, the USA and European states, are fighting with Russia.”
Russia has set out “red lines” before.
Providing Modern Weapons to Ukraine: A Controversial Move
Recent reports have surfaced about the authorization to provide modern battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine, a move that has sparked controversy and raised concerns about potential escalation in the ongoing conflict with Russia.
The Debate Surrounding Weapons Delivery
- Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, criticized the restrictions placed on Ukraine’s use of American weapons, calling it an unjustifiable imposition on Ukraine’s self-defense.
- Volker highlighted the arbitrary nature of limiting the use of ATACMS and suggested that such decisions were made out of fear of provoking Russia.
- Concerns have been raised about giving Russia advance notice of potential Ukrainian strikes by making changes in weapons delivery public.
How will Donald Trump React?
The timing of this decision is crucial, as it comes just two months before Donald Trump is set to return to the White House. Trump has expressed his intention to end the war in Ukraine swiftly, although his approach remains unclear. There is speculation that he could cancel the use of the missiles once he assumes office.
While President-elect Trump has not made a definitive statement on continuing the policy, some of his closest allies have already voiced their opposition. Donald Trump Jr criticized the military-industrial complex for potentially instigating World War Three before his father could pursue peace efforts.
There is a divide within Trump’s inner circle regarding military aid to Ukraine, with Vice President-elect JD Vance advocating against further support while National Security Adviser Michael Waltz argues for accelerated weapons deliveries to pressure Russia into negotiations.
Ukrainian officials are apprehensive about the incoming administration’s stance on weapons deliveries, with MP Oleksiy Goncharenko expressing concerns about a potential reversal of the decision.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the provision of modern weapons to Ukraine reflects the complex geopolitical dynamics at play in the region. As the world watches for Donald Trump’s response to this issue, the implications for the ongoing conflict with Russia remain uncertain.
FAQs
What are the concerns about providing modern weapons to Ukraine?
There are fears that escalating military support could provoke Russia and lead to further conflict in the region.
How might Donald Trump’s stance on weapons deliveries impact the situation in Ukraine?
Trump’s decision on weapons deliveries could have significant implications for Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and negotiate with Russia.