US ready to let Ukraine widen war in Russia with British, French missiles
(Originally published Sept. 13 in “What in the World“) The Kremlin said Wednesday what everyone already knows: the White House has already decided to let Ukraine fire long-range missiles into Russia. It’s just figuring out how to spin the announcement.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov went a bit further, repeating previous warnings by Russian President Vladimir Putin, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, that the latest addition to Ukraine’s capabilities represented an escalation by the West and that Russia would retaliate proportionately. Putin on Thursday trotted out his usual admonition, warning that if Washington proceeds, “This will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are fighting Russia.”
The latest stitch in the narrative Washington is weaving follows a series of anonymous leaks to various outlets from Reuters to Politico and appears on the front page of The New York Times: “Biden Is Poised To Clear Strikes Deep in Russia.”
There’s a wrinkle: instead of just letting Kyiv use American Atacms, the Administration of outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden will let it use British and French long-range cruise missiles instead. Why does Washington have any say over how Ukraine uses their weapons? Because those British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles rely on U.S.-made components. So, it won’t be American missiles raining down in Russia; it’ll be British and French missiles. Apparently, Washington doesn’t do history and realize the parallels this will provide Putin with Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Crimean War.
No, this nuance is for the benefit of the American electorate. Putin doesn’t care about legalistic distinctions concerning which weapons Biden is letting Ukraine use where. Whether or not he decides to respond by deploying nuclear weapons or launching attacks on Europe will depend largely on whether he believes doing so would help defend Russia and the land bridge it has established to Crimea. And, clearly, drawing NATO forces into the conflict by attacking it would not do that.
U.S. officials have been quick to admit that the long-range missiles are coming too late to do Ukraine much good. Russia has already pulled most of the aircraft Ukraine wanted to destroy beyond even their range. The U.S., France, and the U.K. can also only give it so many long-range missiles, and just as they did with artillery and air-defense missiles, are starting to worry that their own arsenals are running so low as to leave them vulnerable.
The Times’ article frames Biden’s serial reversals on letting Ukraine use U.S. weaponry as a carefully calculated risk to avoid starting World War III, rather than what they really are: a reactive string of decisions to give Ukraine greater firepower only when it becomes clear that existing levels of support have become insufficient to maintain the stalemate. The only calculations are whether the American public will tolerate the increasing cost of stalemate until Washington can nudge Ukraine into a ceasefire that gives Russia its land bridge and avoids the only means of achieving a total Russian defeat: direct involvement of U.S. and European troops in Ukraine.
With the Biden presidency winding down, the White House has been working to future-proof military support for Ukraine against Congressional refusal to fund more aid, or worse, a second Trump presidency.
In the Pacific, meanwhile, Australia will begin producing Gmlrs missiles—the shorter-range missiles that, like Atacms, can be fired by the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or Himars. Factories owned by France’s Thales in Victoria and New South Wales will produce motors and warheads that will then be assembled with U.S.-made components into finished Gmlrs at a factory Lockheed Martin is building in New South Wales. Unlike Ukraine’s Gmlrs, however, Australia’s will presumably be pointed not at Russia, but rather at China.