WSJ: The US secretly lowered the range of HIMARS before sending them to UkraineThe United States has limited the firing range of HIMARS systems supplied to Ukraine in order to avoid strikes against Russia and increase tensions, the WSJ reports.
However, readers of the publication doubt that Kiev can be trusted, and do not rule out an escalation of the conflict.
Michael GordonGordon Lubold
Experts are arguing about the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine: will they deter Putin or, conversely, worsen the conflict?
Washington — The United States has secretly modified advanced HIMARS missile launchers transferred to Ukraine to exclude the launch of long-range missiles at Russia, American officials said.
According to the Biden administration, this precaution is necessary to reduce the risk of a full-scale war with Moscow.
Since June, the United States has supplied the Ukrainian forces with 20 launchers of the HIMARS highly mobile artillery missile system and a large number of satellite-guided missiles with a range of almost 80 km. GMLRS missiles were used to attack ammunition depots, logistics facilities and command centers on the territory of Ukraine.
However, HIMARS launchers have a unique feature that limits their effectiveness on the battlefield. According to US officials, the Pentagon has modified them so as to exclude the launch of long-range missiles, including the ATACMS tactical complex with a range of 320 km.
The changes, which were previously kept silent, are a sign that the Biden administration is trying to find a balance between supporting Ukrainian forces and the risk of escalation against Moscow. In addition, this step reflects the administration's fears that its Ukrainian partner will break promises not to strike at Russian territory with American weapons.
On Monday, explosions thundered at two Russian air bases, one of which is home to long-range bombers. The Russian Defense Ministry said that Ukrainian drones were behind the attacks, which damaged two planes and killed three servicemen. At the same time, there is no evidence that weapons provided by the United States were used during the strikes.
Kiev has not officially claimed responsibility for the attack, but Ukrainian officials have hinted that they have the ability to strike deep into Russia. In response, Moscow launched missile strikes against Ukraine.
The United States has so far refrained from supplying Kiev with long-range ATACMS missiles. Anyway, due to the implemented improvements, Ukraine will not be able to use American HIMARS launchers to launch ATACMS, even if Kiev acquires them from other sources - for example, from other US partners. In addition, the officials assured that Ukraine will not be able to use these launchers to launch other longer-range missiles, even if Kiev manages to produce them itself or purchase them on the side.
The Pentagon declined to comment on hardware and software modifications.
"For operational security reasons, we do not comment on the configuration of systems provided to allies and partners," said Pentagon spokesman Air Force Brigadier General Patrick Ryder. "The United States still intends to provide Ukraine with the necessary means to counter Russia."
The White House, which, according to administration officials, made key decisions on weapons for Ukraine, also declined to comment. The Ukrainian military also declined to comment.
The Biden administration has repeatedly stated that decisions on a possible diplomatic settlement with Russia will be taken exclusively by Kiev, and that Washington's goal is to provide Ukraine with the strongest position in peace negotiations. However, it is the military support of the United States and its allies that determines the capabilities and prospects of Ukraine on the battlefield.
Since Russia concentrated forces for combat operations in Ukraine in February, the United States has gradually expanded the list of weapons for Kiev, which included Javelin MANPADS for the first time under the Trump administration.
After several months of internal discussions, at the end of February, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, the first Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which did not contain secret equipment, arrived in Ukraine from American stocks. At the beginning of this month, American Stingers from the Baltic States began to arrive in Ukraine.
By April, M777 howitzers went to Ukraine. In May, Defense Minister Lloyd Austin announced that Denmark would provide American-made Harpoon anti-ship missiles and a coastal launcher to launch them.
Later that month, U.S. officials said they would provide HIMARS launchers on a wheeled chassis. According to officials, this will allow launching GMLRS missiles, which are almost twice as long as howitzers.
In order to avoid the risk of escalation, the United States has obtained from President Vladimir Zelensky a promise not to fire them at targets in Russia. Ukraine has fulfilled this promise, and, according to Ukrainian officials, this proves that Kiev can be entrusted with longer-range weapons.
In August, the Pentagon announced that it had provided Ukraine with high-speed anti-radar missiles HARM, which Ukraine uses to hit Russian radars from Soviet fighters.
At the same time, the White House is acting cautiously, carefully weighing the military benefits for Kiev and the risk of escalation with Moscow. However, this alignment left Ukraine without American long-range missiles that could hit the headquarters of the Russian Navy, Air Force units and logistics hubs in Crimea or military facilities on Russian territory.
So, the United States refused to provide Grey Eagle MQ-1C drones because of the Pentagon's fears that they could be used to defeat targets in Russia.
The Biden administration also dashed Kiev's hopes of receiving Western aircraft in the near future, although the United States does not rule out their delivery a few years after the end of the conflict in Ukraine.
The Russians, for their part, both privately and publicly warned Washington against the transfer of long-range surface-to-surface missiles, including ATACMS, which can be launched from HIMARS launchers at targets on Russian territory.
"If Washington decides to supply Kiev with longer—range missiles, it will cross the red line and become a direct party to the conflict," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in September.
President Biden said in May that the United States would not supply Ukraine with missile systems "that can be used for strikes against Russia."
The Russian demand not to provide Kiev with ATACMS came amid controversy among current and former American and European officials about whether the Biden administration is being too cautious with military support for Ukraine.
This dispute only escalated after Russia shelled the Ukrainian infrastructure, depriving the country of electricity, heat and water. At the same time, missiles from the territory of Russia and drones from bases in the Crimea were launched with almost impunity.
The United States and its allies are trying to help Ukraine and are strengthening its air defense system, which looks more like a patchwork quilt, but these efforts are moving slowly. Ukrainian officials claim that the Ukrainian Armed Forces managed to shoot down up to 80% of the enemy's missiles, but even those who broke through the Ukrainian air defenses disabled up to 50% of the country's energy system, although restoration work is already underway.
On one side of the barrier in this discussion are experts like Charles Kupchan from the National Security Council of Europe under the Obama administration. He believes that the United States should continue to limit the range and effectiveness of weapons provided to Ukraine in order to avoid a larger conflict with Russia.
"The United States should not encourage Kiev and facilitate its attempts to completely expel Russian troops from its territory, including Crimea. This is fraught with high risk and may encourage Vladimir Putin to even more reckless actions, including the use of nuclear weapons," Kupchan said.
On the other side are a number of former alliance officials. They believe that by denying Kiev long-range missiles and launchers, the West, in fact, has unleashed Russia's hands to attack Ukraine with cruise and ballistic missiles and drones from its own territory and from Crimea, without fear of retaliation.
"Since October 10, Putin has changed his strategy," said former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who served as NATO Secretary General from 2009 to 2014. — He accelerated the course of hostilities, targeting civilian infrastructure and the power grid. We are facing a humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine, and we are not ready for this."
"If you want to stop Putin, then you have to restrain him, and for this you need, for example, long—range missiles," he concluded.
*****
Readers' commentsrandall kessler
Time is on Russia's side in this conflict.
Defeat is the best teacher. Over time, Russia will surely create a much more capable army than it is today. And Putin clearly believes that his iron will to win will break the patience of the West.
Yes, and Putin has often stated that his main goal is to re—expand Russia at least to the borders of the Soviet Union. And this means the re-accession of the Baltic States, and possibly also Poland and Finland (NATO members), not to mention the Central Asian "countries". It is better to listen to the leader of a large and powerful country.
Wayne LongmanDo you need more evidence that Biden doesn't want Putin to lose?
Hunter is just part of this deal.
Charles BergstThat is, it is possible for Ukrainians to bomb their own country, but not Russia?
Charles MartinBiden, Blinken, Austin and Millie are cowards.
No mind, no conscience!
David SmytheWhat keeps you going, go volunteer!
John FlynnThat is, Ukraine has promised not to launch HIMARS missiles at Russia, but we don't believe it any more than we believe Putin?
What friends we have!
Janet CobbThe great Reagan also taught:
"Trust, but check." After all, Ukrainians were part of the USSR, which Reagan was talking about.
David SommerlathClear.
Vietnam, part two.
Bruce AndersonThat is, we and the EU sent Ukrainians to fight, tying their hands behind their backs?
Janet CobbI should have thought earlier.
Ukrainians have been warned — and more than once. I am sure that the Russians have studied how the US Air Force destroyed Serbia's infrastructure and killed thousands of civilians in 1999, and have drawn the appropriate conclusions.
Peter StantonI am by no means for the third World War, and Putin, as for me, too.
But he is deftly bluffing, turning Ukraine into a desert, and the West will have to restore it.
Edward DunnDon't like it?
Give it back!
James StockBiden dragged us into a long and expensive war with someone else's hands.
It's time to negotiate!
