Ukraine's use of long-range US missiles
Should President Biden have authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles on targets in Russia? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
Quick announcement
We’re off for Thanksgiving next week and will be back in action the following week. In the meantime, I hope you get to spend some quality time with family or friends.
The holidays are also a great time to practice empathy and understanding of folks with viewpoints different from your own. Here’s to reaching out across the table – literally and figuratively – wherever necessary :) And if you think a friend or family member might enjoy reading Framechange, let them know!
Cheers,
Eric
What’s happening
On Sunday, President Joe Biden authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles on targets in Russian territory. The missiles, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), have a range of roughly 190 miles, which enable Ukraine to strike considerably further than other US-supplied weapons it has been authorized to use (the previously-approved HIMARS rocket system has a range of 50 miles).
Justification: According to US officials, the decision was made partly in response to North Korea’s entry into the conflict. An estimated 10,000 North Korean troops had been deployed to help Russia defend its Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces had reportedly taken as much as 745 sq miles of territory. The ATACMS were initially approved for use targeting Kursk and nearby areas.
Ukraine’s immediate strikes: On Tuesday, Ukraine launched its first attack using ATACMS on Russian targets, reportedly striking an arms depot in the Bryansk region neighboring Kursk. On Wednesday, it fired British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles (long-range weapons similar to ATACMS) on Kursk targets. (Britain has not publicly confirmed approving Storm Shadow use in Russian territory, but its permission was seen as contingent on the US approval.)
Russia’s response: Following Biden’s decision, Russian President Vladimir Putin updated Russia’s nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for use of its nuclear weapons, allowing for a nuclear response to an attack on Russia by any non-nuclear state that is supported by a nuclear state. On Thursday, Russia launched nuclear-capable long-range missiles at targets in Ukraine, saying the “test” was in direct response to the Biden administration’s ATACMS approval.
Intensifying conflict: Biden’s approval came the same day Russia launched its largest drone and missile attack on Ukraine in months, killing 8. Russia has accelerated its advance in recent weeks, with Ukrainian soldiers outnumbered by more than 6:1 in some areas of the homefront.
Biden this week also permitted Ukraine to use antipersonnel mines to help slow the Russian advance. The decision was controversial given 160+ countries have signed a treaty banning their use on grounds they can indiscriminately harm civilians.
Made at an important junction in the war prior to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, Biden’s ATACMS approval has been met with a wide range of reactions. This week, we bring you the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
More opposed to Biden’s ATACMS authorization:
Authorizing the use of US-supplied long-range missiles unnecessarily heightens the risk of Russian escalation.
US intelligence agencies, themselves, concluded two months ago that allowing Ukraine to target Russian territory with US-supplied ATACMS would carry serious risks, including those of a lethal attack on the US or European countries. The administration arguing the risks have now diminished is hard to believe given the war’s core dynamics have not changed.
Russia has had months to shift military assets out of the range of ATACMS and strengthen its air defenses in the region bordering Ukraine, rendering the ATACMS approval minimally impactful while heightening the risk of Russian escalation.
In such a complex conflict where “red lines” are frequently changing and nuclear weapons are on the table, escalation management should be a top priority. Disregarding warnings by Putin, as Biden’s ATACMS approval does, could have dangerous consequences for the US and Europe.
To gain any significant advantage, Ukraine would need far greater stockpiles of ATACMS than the US can provide given current supply constraints. It would also need vastly greater numbers of highly trained military personnel, which Western allies cannot significantly support.
The ATACMS approval only serves to prolong the war and limit Trump’s options when he takes over the presidency.
Biden’s ATACMS approval is consistent with his steady escalation of support for Ukraine over the past two years, which has turned the conflict into a “forever war” driving immense attrition and destruction. There is no viable path to Ukrainian victory and Putin will seek to maintain occupation as long as he is in power.
Senior Biden administration officials reportedly spoke of desires to “Trump-proof” certain national security priorities in recent weeks. The ATACMS approval seems intended to handcuff President-elect Donald Trump to the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy and prevent him from forcing a ceasefire that cedes significant Ukrainian territory.
Rather than supporting Ukraine’s expansion of the war by striking Russian targets, the US should be encouraging Ukraine to bolster its defenses at home to slow Russia’s advance and reengage on a diplomatic conclusion to the fighting.
“It seems clear to me that [Biden’s ATACMS approval] is driven by the fear of the transnational elite that Trump will follow through on his promise to wind down wars, focus on our core security interests, and restore a balance of power everybody can live with.” (David Strom, Hot Air.)
More supportive of Biden’s ATACMS authorization:
ATACMS can make a difference on the battlefield for Ukraine and create leverage for peace talks.
There are still hundreds of viable military targets in Russia that are within range of ATACMS and can be disrupted to give Ukraine strategic advantages in the war.
The ATACMS approval is overdue and will help slow Russia’s attempt to retake portions of its own Kursk region, where there is now an estimated combined force of 50,000 North Korean and Russian soldiers. Retaining occupation in Kursk will help Ukraine maintain leverage in peace talks.
The use of ATACMS might make enough of an impact on the battlefield in the near-term to persuade Trump that properly arming Ukraine – rather than reversing Biden’s approval – will increase the probability of a negotiated peace settlement with Russia.
Russia’s enlistment of an estimated 10,000 North Korean troops to fight in Kursk is an escalation that warranted Biden’s decision to greenlight ATACMS and dissuade further deployment of North Korean forces.
Ukraine’s use of ATACMS on Russian territory is unlikely to drive significant Russian escalation.
Russia’s repeated threats against actions it said would constitute crossing “red lines” – including the equipping of Ukraine with fixed-wing aircraft, M1 Abrams tanks, and cluster munitions – have all turned up empty in hindsight. This demonstrates that Putin’s threats of a potential nuclear response to the use of ATACMS on targets in Russian territory are empty and no reason to stop supporting Ukraine’s fight.
While Russia may escalate its response to Biden’s decision as it has threatened it would, such an escalation would likely be limited to more indirect actions such as arming US enemies like the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
“A step as rash as engineering a nuclear event would imperil Russia’s strategic objectives well beyond Ukraine’s borders and imperil [Putin’s] longevity in his role, even assuming such an epochal incident does not beget a reciprocal response from NATO’s nuclear states.” (Noah Rothman, National Review.)
Biden’s initial delay in approving ATACMS was properly measured given the very real threats of Russian retaliation to Western involvement in the war – Russia was blamed, for instance, for recently planting explosive devices on planes in Europe. But Russia has escalated the conflict to an unacceptable level by adding North Korean troops to the battlefield, necessitating Biden’s response with the ATACMS approval.
Other viewpoints:
Biden’s ATACMS approval, while the right decision, likely threatens retaliatory attacks by Russia on European NATO countries in the form of more discrete – but still-dangerous – arson and cyber attacks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has long-pushed for permission to use US-supplied ATACMS on Russian targets, must prove they make a difference to justify the approval and continue receiving similar support.
In order to dissuade Putin from attempting to take more territory, Trump should be even tougher than Biden on Russia and threaten to provide more US weapons (e.g., Tomahawks) with fewer restrictions on their use, as Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Florida) has suggested. Russia could live with walking away with 20% of Ukrainian territory, particularly given the military toll Russia has paid so far, and Trump should want to avoid a stained legacy for allowing Russia to get away with more than that.
Trump’s promise to end the war in Ukraine after his inauguration is paradoxically increasing the intensity of the fighting from both sides seeking to gain favorable postures in negotiations.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on Biden’s approval of Ukraine using ATACMS on Russian territory and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Below are topic ideas to consider.
Do you agree with Biden’s decision? Why or why not?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
Snippets
Matt Gaetz, President-elect Donald Trump’s initial nominee for Attorney General, withdrew his name from consideration for the role amid scrutiny related to sex trafficking allegations. Trump tapped Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace him.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Google should be forced to sell its Chrome browser business as a remedy for its monopoly in the online search market. A US district judge ruled earlier this year Google holds a monopoly in “general search services” and “general search text advertising.” (See our previous coverage.)
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging they committed war crimes by directing attacks at civilians and using starvation as a weapon in Gaza. Many European countries are technically required to carry out an arrest of either figure on their soil, but observers say the implications of the warrants are politically complex.
Jose Ibarra, an undocumented migrant from Venezuela accused of murdering University of Georgia student Laken Riley earlier this year, was convicted of 10 charges and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
A Hong Kong court sentenced 45 pro-democracy activists to various prison sentences, the longest of which is 10 years. The ruling comes in the largest national security trial to-date under a new law implemented in 2020.
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
Music on the bottom
A throwback to 2016’s “High,” by indie pop band Sir Sly. Something to help put you in a positive mindset for the weekend.
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.