Ukraine is accelerating and the USA continues to slow down: the release of long-range weapons is dividing the partners. Observers also doubt its meaning.
Kiev – “To its credit, Ukraine is doing a lot to strike deep inside Russia,” write William Courtney and John Hoehn. According to the magazine Defense News Ukraine should be armed with long-range weapons as quickly and as generously as possible in the war against Vladimir Putin. The US secret service, however, has exactly the opposite opinion.
“The Russians will be the first to know if Ukraine receives permission from its allies to penetrate deep into Russian territory with Western long-range weapons,” said Serhii Nykyforov; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s spokesman reignited the discussion about the delivery of long-range missiles and the clearance to fire on the Russian heartland. The Ukrainska Pravda currently reports that Nykyforov clarified the demand again on Ukrainian television, without adding any new arguments.
Ukraine is pushing forward again: Zelensky spokesman wants to build pressure on the USA
“We have this huge request and we hope that the partners will give in,” he said, according to the Pravda and probably wants to create further pressure. In contrast, the reports New York Times parallel to serious concerns from US intelligence; That could explain US President Joe Biden’s hesitation. If the USA, Great Britain and France allow long-range missiles they produce to attack targets deep inside Russia, it is likely that “Russia will retaliate with greater severity – possibly even with deadly attacks – on the USA and its coalition partners.” writes that NYT with reference to the previously unpublished intelligence sources.
“While the rhetoric suggests a possible expansion of scenarios in which Russia might consider a nuclear deterrent, it does not represent a fundamental departure from the country’s long-standing policy. However, the language remains vague: it neither defines what a, “Unification, nor does it make it clear who a nuclear strike could be directed at.”
The US authorities assess the success of such long-range attacks as being generally low for the course of the Ukraine war; What is also crucial is that, even in the best case scenario, the Ukrainians can only attack with a limited number of such long-range weapons and the amount of supplies from western countries is actually questionable. “The assessment underscores what intelligence analysts see as the potential risk and uncertain benefits of a high-stakes decision,” such as the NYT writes. Joe Biden’s government continues to follow a zigzag course – apparently the pros and cons are being discussed controversially and vehemently in the USA, without a quick end being obvious.
“Starting from Ukraine, there is no shortage of observations for us to reflect on,” said James Rainey, as quoted by the magazine Defense News quoted. The general heads the Army Futures Command, the branch of the US Army responsible for modernizing the armed forces. Also the magazine Politico names voices that consider the use of US weapons against Vladimir Putin on his own territory as a “value”.
Ukraine war as a dress rehearsal: USA is looking for its future role as a world power.
The first major land war on European soil since World War II is the dress rehearsal for the next one – possibly even larger. The USA is looking for its future role as a world power. “A senior U.S. military official told lawmakers in early May that easing restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American weapons on Russian territory would make ‘military sense,'” the magazine reported Politico. Since then, the discussion has been fermenting within the USA and its allies.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had also just faced headwinds over his admission that he would allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons against Vladimir Putin. “Allowing the use of British long-range missiles against Russia would be a mistake of potentially nuclear proportions,” the British promptly wrote Guardian. Over the past two years, NATO has “disciplined and impressively attempted to prevent an East-West escalation along the Russian border,” writes Simon Jenkins. The Guardian-Commentator praises keeping “cool heads.” “The muscle-flexing of the British Defense Secretary – and Starmer himself – was pointless,” says Jenkins.
The GuardianHowever, the author assumes that everything is lost anyway, as he writes. “After its initial defeat by the Russian invasion, Ukraine was able to resist Putin’s westward push with considerable outside help, but that was the limit. As in all of history, Russia’s resources are ultimately overwhelming.” However, he also claims that the Ukraine war has long since moved beyond a conflict over national independence to an economic and military proxy war by the West against Russia.
Reactions from Russia feared: Where should Putin be best stopped?
That also seems to be an absolutely correct assessment – which led to the question of whether Vladimir Putin would have to be stopped in eastern Ukraine for this very reason, instead of possibly in the Baltics in five years or at the Polish border in ten years. According to the New York Times US intelligence agencies expressed specific fears about a range of possible Russian reactions to the decision to allow long-range missile strikes from the US and Europe. From increased arson and sabotage of facilities in Europe to potentially deadly attacks on US and European military bases.
In addition, after the first attacks, the Russians would probably move ammunition depots, command posts, attack helicopters and other important combat functions out of range of the missiles, writes NYT based on statements from the secret service. In mid-September, the paper had already reported that even Republicans were demanding a tougher course. Above all, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would have insisted on an “aggressive reaction” and a clear break with the former president Donald Trump provoked.
Staying silent is not an option: Zelenskyj remains bold and demanding – and receives support
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had already increasingly vehemently pushed for a change of direction. More and more US and Western politicians had also called for this step so that Russia would no longer be given options in the north of Ukraine by remaining silent. It had become increasingly obvious to Western military officials that Putin’s troops were carrying out rocket attacks from beyond the reach of Ukrainian air defenses and were preparing or supporting infantry advances. The dilemma has been dragging on for months.
In the meantime, the think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW) had also spoken out in favor of Joe Biden “allowing Ukraine to attack all military targets in the operational and deepest rear areas of Russia with weapons supplied by the USA.” Newsweek reported. The think tank had published a map full of markings showing which areas under Vladimir Putin’s illegal occupation are within range of American long-range missiles. The analysts of the ISW are decisively calling for the use of, for example, the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems).
Despite intensified rhetoric: ATACMS offensive can be carried out safely without a nuclear counterstrike
However, at the same time, Russia has just revised its nuclear doctrine. Vladimir Putin announced in the Russian Security Council that an aggression against Russia by a non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state would be treated as a joint attack on the Russian Federation – but Maxim Trudolyubov considers Putin’s move to be only partially cheeky.
The analyst at the US think tank Wilson Center also comes to the conclusion that long-range strikes would only be effective if Ukraine could simultaneously carry out extensive ground operations. The new aspect of the nuclear doctrine will be that a non-nuclear state could also be the main aggressor against Russia without being formally allied with a nuclear state, and both could still wage a joint attack. Russia would thus reserve the right to define a nuclear threat itself. The author of the Wilson Center think tank and editor-in-chief of the online magazine Meduza However, it does not see this as increasing the threat to the Western powers.
“While the rhetoric suggests a possible expansion of scenarios in which Russia might consider a nuclear deterrent, it does not represent a fundamental departure from the country’s long-standing policy. However, the language remains vague: it neither defines what a, “Unification’, nor does it make clear who a nuclear strike could be directed against.”
#Secret #service #warns #longrange #weapons #Putin