Vitaly
Ryumshin
US
President Joe Biden’s authorization for Ukraine to use Western long-range
missiles on ‘old’ Russian territory is perhaps the most serious episode of
escalation in the two and a half years of the Ukraine conflict.
While
the battlefield has yet to fully reflect these changes, the rhetoric has
already reached unprecedented levels: Moscow immediately brandished the
‘nuclear card’. Meanwhile, the conservative wing in the West accuses Biden of
trying to spark World War III, while liberals seem to tentatively approve,
though with uncertainty. Only one person appears completely satisfied
–Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky. He is behaving as if victory is assured,
though in reality, there is little to celebrate.
There
are real doubts about whether Biden’s move will significantly impact the war’s
trajectory.
Even
the US president’s own advisers admit that what Ukraine truly needs is
soldiers, not more advanced weapons systems. The “wunderwaffen” provided so far
have not been particularly effective.
Since
2023, Ukraine has used Storm Shadow/SCALP systems and, since spring 2024,
ATACMS. However, attacks on Russian military installations in Crimea and other
new territories have yielded few tangible results. The exact number of missiles
Ukraine has left is unclear, but estimates suggest only a limited stock. The
Times reported fewer than 50 ATACMS, and The Telegraph described the number of
Storm Shadow/SCALPs as “relatively few,” likely around 100.
With
reserves running low, the question remains: What impact can these missiles
have? If Ukraine launches a few large strikes and then faces shortages, is it
worth the risk, especially given Moscow’s increasingly proactive response and
the potential for major retaliation? The answer is no.
If
we consider the situation from a military standpoint, the West’s decision
appears reckless and illogical. This marks a radical departure from Biden’s
traditionally cautious approach, suggesting a political, rather than military,
calculation behind the move.
There
is widespread belief in both Russia and the West that Biden is trying to
undermine President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to broker talks between Moscow
and Kiev once he returns to power. The idea is that Putin, fearing reputational
damage, will escalate the conflict further to placate Russian hawks, forcing
Trump to continue supporting Ukraine to avoid being labeled a “loser” who
abandoned US interests.
However,
this strategy could backfire. What happens if the American public’s resentment
towards the outgoing administration’s actions, which is already building,
becomes overwhelming? If so, Trump would gain a compelling reason to end US
involvement in Ukraine. He would then shift from “loser” to hero – someone who
prevented World War III. Biden and his allies in the Democratic Party are
unlikely to want to strengthen Trump in this way.
The
West knows that, given its current state, Ukraine will eventually come to the
negotiating table. Trump’s arrival won’t change this – it will likely only
accelerate the peace process.
In
this scenario, Biden’s actions – arming Ukraine in the final months of his
presidency – don’t seem so irrational. The goal isn’t escalation for a
breakthrough, but simply to buy time so that Kiev is in a stronger position
when negotiations begin. It’s about maintaining enough of a hold, particularly
in parts of Kursk Region, as leverage. Ukrainian forces may even risk further
border incursions.
Politically,
Biden’s decision is relatively safe. It won’t affect the elections – his party
has already lost in a landslide. The looming prospect of a peace deal could
prevent the Kremlin from reacting too harshly. At least, that’s what the White
House hopes. No one knows for sure except Biden and his inner circle.
How
will Russia respond? Since this provocation is political, we can expect a
political response. We’ve already seen part of it: a tougher nuclear stance.
The second component is the launch of the new Oreshnik hypersonic missile,
reported last week. This serves as a show of force. Some might argue that the
“red lines” have lost their relevance, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s enough
to cool down the hotheads in the West. For now, that’s all that’s needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment