UKRAINE: THE ESCALATION OF LONG-RANGE MISSILES

Following the Ramstein Group meeting aimed at coordinating military aid to Ukraine, which President Zelensky attended in person for the first time last Friday, the Biden administration signaled that it might deliver its first air-to-ground JAASM cruise missiles this fall. These weapons, deployed from recently delivered F-16s or modified Ukrainian MiG-29s and SU-27s, have the potential to reach deep into Russian territory, covering distances between 370 and 1,000 kilometers with warheads weighing up to 450 kilograms.

Until recently, Biden had resisted authorizing such deep strikes, fearing a potential Russian nuclear response. Only the British and French had provided a limited number of Storm Shadow/Scalp air-to-ground missiles, with a range of 350 kilometers, which have already wreaked havoc in Crimea. The Germans, meanwhile, continue to withhold their Taurus missile systems (500 kilometers range).

In June, following Moscow's air offensive on Kyiv, Biden permitted Ukrainian forces to retaliate on Russian soil using ATACMS ground-to-ground missiles, but only within the neighboring Belgorod region, to ease the Russian stranglehold.

Since then, Zelensky launched a ground offensive in the Kursk region in early August, aiming, he claims, to secure territorial gains ahead of potential peace negotiations. While bold, this offensive has not altered the balance of power nor compelled the Russians to slow their advance in Donbas. In fact, the opposite seems true, with the impending fall of the strategic city of Pokrovsk.

Facing setbacks on the ground and growing anxious about the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, Ukrainian forces have intensified deep strikes into Russian territory, notably using domestically produced drones. Their goal is to influence Russian public opinion and pressure Putin into negotiations. A Russian civilian, a woman, was killed in a town near Moscow in recent days. However, drones are slow and vulnerable, which underscores the need for long-range missiles—a need further justified by Iran’s ongoing missile shipments to Moscow.

The anticipated shift in U.S. policy, seemingly prepared by the joint visit to Kyiv on September 10 by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his British counterpart, David Lammy—a diplomatic first—has not materialized. During a subsequent meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Washington, Biden ultimately upheld his veto, at least for the time being. Despite Blinken’s fiery rhetoric in Kyiv, where he spoke of “winning” the war and providing Ukraine with “everything it needs,” Biden has not altered his stance, wary of direct conflict with Moscow, a prospect Putin has repeatedly used as a threat. According to Putin, supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles capable of striking Russian territory would “change the nature of the war,” turning it into a direct NATO-Russia conflict.

Until now, while Western nations have provided Ukraine with $200 billion worth of advanced weaponry, they have refrained from allowing strikes on Russian territory, just as Moscow has refrained from attacking the delivery routes of Western arms within NATO territory.

Zelensky, who did not seek Washington’s approval before launching the Kursk offensive, repeatedly argues that the much-feared “red lines” drawn by Western powers are nothing but self-imposed bluff. In his view, the proof lies in Moscow’s lack of response following the Ukrainian incursion onto Russian soil—the first invasion of Russian territory since 1941! He continues to tirelessly push for a change in Biden’s stance, which would validate Ukraine’s strategic approach. The logic is clear: internationalize this war at all costs, turning it into a united Western conflict against Russia.

However, two major caveats remain. First, from a military perspective, a long-range missile war will have little impact on the battlefield without significant reinforcements in manpower and material on the Ukrainian side—a buildup considered out of reach given the power imbalance between the two sides. Second, Russia has threatened to respond to this imminent escalation, a concern echoed by CIA Director William Burns in the Financial Times: “None of us should take the risks of escalation lightly,” he said, before adding, “But I have never thought we should be unnecessarily intimidated by it.”

For now, Biden is sticking to the first part of this equation. The second will likely be addressed during Zelensky’s upcoming visit to Washington.

Pierre Lellouche

Tribune VA, 12/09/24