Game-changing long-range missiles are coming to Ukraine
Game-changing long-range missiles are coming to Ukraine
The UK is reportedly preparing to send much-wanted long-range missiles to Ukraine. But why is the US okay with this?
So, kind of a conundrum in the news today from Ukraine. The Washington Post, among others, is reporting that the Brits are preparing to send long (or longer) range missiles to Ukraine. I.e., missiles with a range of 200 miles or 300 km.
While this is great news for Ukraine, none of this makes sense.
First off, the good news. Ukraine has wanted longer-range weapons forever, in order to hit Russian supplies (ammunition, fuel), troops and military headquarters. I just checked Wikipedia, on a hunch, and there are additional possible targets that would be a game-changer for the Ukrainians as well: Russian ships, subs and bridges:
Intended targets are command, control and communications; airfields; ports and power stations; AMS/ammunition storage; surface ships and submarines in port; bridges and other high value strategic targets.
The US has refused to provide Ukraine the missiles, claiming we’re worried that Ukraine might use the weapons to hit Russia proper. But that makes no sense, as every weapon we’ve given Ukraine could be used to hit Russia itself (meaning, invade Russia), and Ukraine hasn’t done so. So why would these missiles be any different? The actual reason the US has been refusing, many of us think, is because Biden is afraid of “escalation” — meaning, making Putin angry, lest Putin use his nukes, etc. (Not that I think that’s a real threat.)
But here’s the problem. The latest story from Politico says the US “breathed a sigh of relief” that the UK has decided to supply the missiles to Ukraine. Politico reports that officials say this will take pressure off the Biden administration at home, as critics have been pushing Biden to send the US version of the missiles, called ATACMS. But that makes no sense. If the US’ reasons for opposing longer-range missiles for Ukraine are as we think — that Biden fears Ukraine will strike Russia proper, and Biden fears pissing off a nuclear-prone Putin — then those same fears exist whether the US provides the missiles or whether the UK does. It doesn’t matter who’s sending them. Either way we risk Putin responding with a nuke (if you believe that’s a real threat, as Biden appears to —I personally don’t). So why is the US now okay with the Brits sending long-ranger missiles?
Perhaps there’s a secret agreement the US made with Russia not to supply the missiles, and the agreement had to be very US-specific, otherwise the UK providing them would break the deal. Meaning, did we promise not to send such missiles, in exchange for Putin releasing Brittney Griner? Did such a promise help grease the wheels for the earlier grain export deal? It had to be a deal that wouldn’t be perceived by Putin to have been broken if the Brits went ahead with it, so it had to be America-specific. (Though even that doesn’t totally make sense. Why would Russia be okay with the US not sending our missiles, only to have them come from the UK later on? Or are our ATACMS so much better than the British Storm Shadow, the cruise missile that presumably the Brits would be sending?)
As I said, something doesn’t make sense about all this. The good news is that the missiles appear to be forthcoming. When? That’s the question, as Ukraine is preparing for its big counteroffensive, which could take place any day or month. I wouldn’t be surprised if this news from the Brits, if it’s real, and it appears to be — otherwise the Brits would be putting the kibosh on it in the press — convinces the Ukrainians to delay their counteroffensive a bit longer. Much better to hit the Russian supply lines, troops in waiting, ships — and the Kerch bridge! — before the attack begins. And, there’s the added benefit of a delay providing more time for allied weapons to arrive. The only limiting factor I can imagine is weather — how long is the counteroffensive expected to go, and when does the Ukrainian rainy season begin again in the fall. (October?) But that’s a long way off from May.
All in all, this is great news for Ukraine. Let’s see how long it takes for the missiles to be in place and operational.
JOHN
So the suggestion that Ukraine should accept being neutral and NOT part of NATO if Russia pulls out entirely (including Crimea) and agrees to respect its territorial integrity is a non-starter because unless Ukraine is IN NATO then Russia will inevitably invade again? Makes sense. And boy is it great that more countries have joined NATO. It's such BS that this threatens Russia. It's only a problem for them if they plan to invade!
But what do you think about it in general? A stalemate sort of favors Russia, right? Is it better Ukraine keeps getting stronger and can actually push Russia out? Or is this a dangerous escalation, no matter what weapons Ukraine would understandably want? Is the pre-2014 border the only acceptable end game here?