Ukraine finds itself at the cusp of significant change on the battlefield as it considers employing long-range missiles against Russian targets, raising eyebrows and speculations across the globe. There’s talk of the U.S. granting Ukraine the green light to use ATACMS ballistic missiles as well as Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which has sparked intense discussions about the consequences this could have on the dynamics of the war. This potential shift marks months of Ukraine's pressing requests for advanced weaponry from its Western allies, who have hesitated due to fears of escalated conflict.
Reports have emerged, prominently featured by The New York Times, indicating President Joe Biden’s authorization for Ukraine to fire deep-striking missiles across the border. The rationale behind this decision? Sources refer to the threat posed by North Korean forces joining the conflict augmented by Moscow’s initiatives. Military experts state this shift could potentially aim to deter more sturdy North Korean reinforcement efforts by sending them a stark message. All eyes are on the impending first strikes, which might happen as soon as the coming days, according to Reuters.
The discussions surrounding ATACMS and Storm Shadow emerged as significant reports surfaced late last year. On November 17, French media outlet Le Figaro suggested France and Britain had also endorsed the idea of strikes using Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles. This second wave of rumors led Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to share his victory plan with partners, including enhancing long-range capabilities, though he stopped short of confirming any authorization for strikes. “Such things are not announced. The missiles will speak for themselves,” he asserted, highlighting the potent nature of this discussion.
Meanwhile, confusion clouded the initial reports as the mention of Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles faded from Le Figaro shortly thereafter. Britain chose to remain tight-lipped on the issue, with officials stating their position might not necessarily align with Washington’s. France’s Minister for European Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, weighed in by affirming SCALP missile authorization remains under consideration, but no new developments followed.
The timing of these authorizations becomes exceedingly relevant. Following intense strikes by Russian forces on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and the reported engagement of North Korean soldiers, many are presenting this potential green light as less an isolated decision and more of a calculated response to persistent threats. Volodymyr Fesenko, the Chairman of the Penta Center for Applied Political Studies, noted these communications give the impression of nuanced strategy rather than outright commitment, promoting ambiguity which keeps adversaries guessing.
U.S. officials conveyed mixed sentiments on these developments including fears of potential retaliation from Putin. The heightened tensions from all sides amplify concerns about potentially spiraling military actions. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda shared optimistic thoughts about switching the strategy to lift restrictions on ATACMS as it could mark an enormous turning point. Echoing this, high-ranking EU officials urged collective support for any U.S. decisions going forward.
Germany’s and Lithuania's foreign ministers echoed similar thoughts on this pivot being integral to fortifying Ukraine’s defense. Polish President Andrzej Duda was outspoken, connecting the dots between this supposed green light from allies and the resolve it showcases against Russia’s bullying tactics. On the flip side, dissenting voices emerged too. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó cautioned this could widen the scope of conflict globally.
The global reactions reveal the complexity of supporting Ukraine. Countries like Italy remain steadfast, clearly stating they believe the use of Western-provided arms should be confined to defense on Ukrainian soil. Meanwhile, strong sentiment remains within Russia, with Kremlin officials branding these potential strikes as aggressive provocations. Dmitry Peskov warned any U.S. missile strikes on Russian territory would mark direct involvement from NATO, which signifies heightened risks.
Maps showcasing potential Russian targets soon proliferated, depicting regions within reach of both ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles. ATACMS, with its 300 km range, could threaten areas like Bryansk, Kursk, and even the significant Crimean Bridge. Storm Shadow missiles could threaten far-reaching cities including Moscow, providing Ukraine with the ability to hit strategic targets deep inside Russian territory, fundamentally altering the battlefield arithmetic.
Despite the clarity these maps provided, the scope of these authorizations, particularly for the Kursk region, presents many questions. This region, near the Russian border, has become contentious since reports of North Korean troops began surfacing, feeding Ukraine's frustrations over the perceived restraint placed on them by foreign allies. Analyst commentary speculates military engagements here are pressing, especially with North Korean personnel reportedly reinforcing Russian forces.
Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukrainian military intelligence, disclosed the alarming presence of approximately 12,000 North Korean troops, raising the stakes for Kyiv. Earlier this year, Kyiv had submitted lists of Russian targets within the borders, emphasizing the airfields utilized for strikes against Ukrainian cities have been fortified due to previous action from ATACMS. Hence, the urgency for extending strike capabilities appears more pressing than ever.
This climate of uncertainty does not reveal any straightforward solutions. Previous restrictions showed Ukraine had faced significant hurdles achieving military objectives. Widespread calls for clearer positions on all fronts continue to emerge as this pivotal moment hangs over NATO-U.S. relations. Analysts like Kostiantyn Kryvolap and Ihor Romanenko voiced concerns about possible limitations this authorization could impose, hinting it may merely be the tip of the iceberg of what needs to happen for the tide to shift.
Romanenko pushed for broader allowances, arguing lifting restrictions across various fronts matter significantly more than the set positions discussed. The need to broaden strike capabilities beyond simple territorial objectives connects to larger motifs of deterrence and power display within military strategy.
Underneath it all, the question lingers—will these changes alter the course of the war? If the U.S. and its allies engage more actively, with strikes capable of reaching Russian terrain, could Putin recalibrate his strategies as well? All indications suggest the conflict is still poised on the precipice of wider confrontation, and the decisions made currently resonate far beyond the threshold of the battlefield.
A decision from the U.S. or its allies to engage long-range missile systems against Russia undoubtedly redefines aspects of engagement for both sides. It places additional strain on diplomatic relations, heralding anticipated aggressive rhetoric from Moscow if such developments come to fruition. The nuances encapsulating this dilemma show the stakes at this junction, leaving everyone on both sides struck between the balance of conflict and diplomacy.
