In recent developments, the United States and United Kingdom are engaged in discussions regarding the potential authorization for Ukraine to employ Western-supplied weapons for long-range strikes within Russian territory. This dialogue comes as the conflict in Ukraine approaches its 31st month, having begun in March 2022.
Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, arrived in Washington on September 15, 2024, to confer with US President Joe Biden on this critical matter. The primary focus of their talks is whether to grant Ukraine permission to utilize NATO-provided armaments for targeting locations deep inside Russia's borders, a move the US administration has thus far been reluctant to approve.
Some US officials express significant doubts about the efficacy of such a strategy. They argue that Ukraine already possesses the capability to strike Russian targets using drones. While the provision of US-manufactured ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles would enhance this ability, these officials contend that the missiles' high cost and limited quantity would not substantially alter the conflict's dynamics.
A key concern raised by US officials is that the Kremlin has largely repositioned potential high-priority targets, such as Russian warplanes launching glide bombs, beyond the range of US-supplied missiles. This strategic move by Russia potentially diminishes the impact of any long-range strike capabilities Ukraine might acquire.
Moreover, US officials emphasize the importance of Ukraine focusing on halting Russian advances in the eastern part of the country. They particularly highlight the strategic significance of defending Pokrovsk, a city in Donetsk Oblast, suggesting that its loss could deal a substantial blow to Ukraine's position.
The decision to authorize such strikes extends beyond tactical considerations for Biden. It raises profound questions about the risk of direct conflict between NATO and Russia. At the United Nations, Russia issued a stark warning, stating that allowing Ukraine to launch missiles deep into Russian territory would transform NATO into "a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power."
Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, has indicated that such a move would alter the scope of the conflict. John Kirby, the White House spokesman, acknowledged the seriousness of these threats while noting that Putin's rhetoric remains consistent with previous statements.
"We need to have this long-range capability not only on the occupied territory of Ukraine, but also on Russian territory ... so that Russia is motivated to seek peace."
Zelenskiy's plea for long-range strike capabilities echoes previous requests for advanced military equipment, such as F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets and M1 Abrams tanks. Ukraine has reportedly submitted a list of potential targets within Russia to US and British authorities, should permission for such strikes be granted.
As the debate continues, analysts suggest that Russia has various response options short of direct war with NATO if the US or its allies permit Ukraine to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory. These potential responses range from arming Western adversaries to deploying conventional missiles within striking distance of the US and its European allies.
The ongoing discussions reflect the complex strategic calculations involved in the Ukraine conflict, balancing the potential benefits of enhanced strike capabilities against the risks of escalation and the immediate needs of ground defense.