The recent announcement by US President Joe Biden that he will allow Ukraine to use long-range US missiles against Russia follows a familiar pattern of initial refusal followed by subsequent approval. This approval often comes at the very moment when the request appeared to have been rejected.
Ukraine had requested access to equipment such as HIMARS missiles, Abrams tanks, and F16s, but approval of these requests has been slow. One question mark is whether the use of ATACMS, US missiles, will actually make a difference in striking targets deep inside Russia.
The situation is complex, and may partly explain the Biden administration’s reluctance to agree. For one thing, there is a limited supply of ATACMS that Ukraine can obtain. While these missiles have a longer range of up to 100 km, their availability will not radically change the situation on the battlefield.
In addition, Ukraine has successfully penetrated deep into Russia using cheaper, domestically-made drones. The United States has pledged to help finance these devices, which have already caused significant damage to Russian energy infrastructure and Moscow’s airports.
It is also important to note that using American precision missiles to strike deep into Russia can be seen as a provocation. While Russia is currently militarily weakened and unlikely to seek a major conflict with NATO or the United States, it is likely that the Kremlin will seek to restore its deterrent capability at some point.
Ultimately, the White House’s decision to allow the use of these longer-range missiles was carefully considered. The potential for civilian collateral damage in NATO member countries in the event of Russian retaliation was a key factor in this decision.
This approval is also intended to reinforce the United States’ commitment to the war in Ukraine and to show that the country is taking the situation very seriously. The deployment of North Korean troops in Kursk was a trigger for this decision, which is seen as a response to Russia’s escalation.
In short, this decision signifies an escalation in a complex conflict. The involvement of various strategic actors at the global level, such as North Korea, underlines the increasingly global dimension of this war for the United States and its allies.
This decision will have major repercussions on the geopolitical landscape and on the balance of power in the presence. It will be essential to closely monitor the evolution of the situation and the responses that it could provoke from the different parties involved.