Connect with us

World

Why long-range missiles could be either a silver bullet or a powder keg for Ukraine-Russia war

Published

3 months ago

on

Why long-range missiles could be either a silver bullet or a powder keg for Ukraine-Russia war

play

(This story has been updated with new information)

WASHINGTON − A decision allowing Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia with U.S.-guided weapons appears imminent as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy presses western allies for permission this week at the United Nations General Assembly.

The stakes couldn’t be much higher.

Ukraine wants to destroy Russian bases that have launched devastating airstrikes on residential neighborhoods and critical infrastructure, while Russian President Vladimir Putin warns that Western-backed strikes in Russia’s heartland will pull NATO countries into the war.

The calculations for President Joe Biden and the Pentagon are muddy, as ever, in a war that has stretched on for more than two and a half years.

The administration has balanced supporting Ukraine against the unprovoked invasion, preventing a wider conflagration in Europe and maintaining weapons stocks in the Pentagon’s own arsenal. Zelenskyy is expected to plead his case in White House meetings Thursday with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Yet feared red lines with Putin – arming Ukraine with Abrams tanks, long-range rocket artillery and F-16 fighter jets – have been crossed without sparking a wider war.

More: White House, Pentagon announce massive military aid package for Ukraine

What Ukraine wants

Earlier in the war, Ukraine deployed a shorter-range precision weapon to destroy Russian command posts and supply depots. They worked, forcing the Russian military to move sensitive targets farther from the front line.

Zelenskyy now wants to take the fight deeper into Russia with longer-range missiles.

Zelenskyy already has western-supplied, long-range precision weapons – the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, and British Storm Shadow and French SCALP missiles. ATACMS have a range of up to 190 miles, while French and British missiles can reach around 155 miles. But precise targeting at their longest range requires technical guidance that only the Pentagon can provide, limiting their effectiveness.

U.S. policy has been altered to allow its weapons to attack inside Russia close to the Ukraine border. But the prohibition on striking targets at the high range of the weapons remains in effect, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

There have been ongoing discussions within the administration about allowing deeper missile strikes but no decisions have been made, the official said.

Ukraine wants to destroy Russia’s ability to launch attacks with Soviet-era weapons launched from aircraft inside Russian airspace that have been outfitted to glide to their targets. So-called glide bombs have proved difficult to defend against.

How the weapons could help Ukraine fight Russia

Russia relies on bases outside the current range of Ukrainian missiles to launch airstrikes and stockpiles large stores in its own country to conduct ground attacks, giving them a “huge advantage,” said Fred Kagan, a senior fellow and director of the critical threats project at the American Enterprise Institute.

“The more that the Ukrainians are able to strike these perfectly legitimate military targets that the Russians are using to attack Ukraine, the more countermeasures the Russians have to take that reduce the effectiveness of Russian military action,” he said.

Ukraine has used its weapons to carry out long-range strikes, highlighting the advantage of hitting targets inside Russia.

Most notably, the Ukrainian military demolished a Russian arsenal around 240 miles from Moscow last week in what Kagan called the third such Ukrainian drone attack. That strike reportedly destroyed 30,000 tons of ammunition, “probably several months’ worth,” according to Kagan.

“We’ve seen the intensity of some Russian air artillery operations drop after these attacks,” he said.

Longer-range strikes would force Russia to move its command posts, supply depots and airfields farther from Ukraine, according to a senior defense official who also was not authorized to speak publicly. Longer supply lines slow the restocking of vital equipment, and longer flight times mean warplanes will have less time to loiter when they reach their patrol area.

Beyond those tactical advantages, the strikes could have larger, strategic effects, the official said. The war will drag on even longer, and Russia, which has suffered hundreds of thousands of troops wounded and killed, will have to reconsider its costs, the official said.

Why supplying Ukraine with weapons is complicated

Escalating the war could have unforeseen consequences.

Russian military doctrine allows for the use of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Seen as unlikely, the possibility of detonating a nuclear weapon can’t be dismissed.

More immediately, supplying Ukraine with precision weapons means there are fewer in U.S. stockpiles. They’d be in high demand in a conflict with North Korea, a perpetual saber rattler, or with China and its longstanding designs on Taiwan.

The limited number of western precision missiles for use in Ukraine means their effect on Russia would be muted and thus not worth the potential cost in escalation, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Kagan doesn’t buy that argument. There’s no reason to believe Putin’s threats are any less hollow than before, he said.

“The burden thus far has been put on those advocating for allowing Ukraine to strike legitimate military targets in Russia,” Kagan said. “But I think the burden really needs to shift now to those who say that some fear of an unspecified escalation should continue to cause us to hold the Ukrainians back.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading