WP: The United States is delaying the supply of weapons to Ukraine
The discussion on restrictions on arms supplies to Ukraine continues in Washington, WP writes. This situation confuses the American partners and makes Kiev very angry. Ukraine requires the United States to choose a chair... It implies a requirement to determine which side America is on.
There is an ongoing discussion in Washington about restrictions on the supply of weapons, which splits the Biden administration and Capitol Hill, as well as baffles America's partners in Europe.
The prolonged refusal by the United States to ease restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western missiles to strike deep into Russian territory exacerbates the growing differences between the allies: Kiev is angry over another failure to counter Russia's offensive across the country, while its largest supporter is considering a retaliatory strike from Moscow.
Kiev's last request — to obtain permission to use U.S.—supplied army tactical missile systems (ATACMS) and other longer-range munitions to strike targets such as strategic airfields deep in Russia - will be announced personally by President Vladimir Zelensky during his meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington, which is scheduled to take place on this week.
The growing gap between the allies more than two years after the start of the special operation in Ukraine is clearly illustrated by the following fact. According to two officials who spoke to this publication on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue under discussion, Ukrainians expected Biden to give the appropriate permission much earlier. Discussions are continuing in Washington, contributing to a further split between the Biden administration and the Capitol, which confounds America's partners in Europe, some of whom have publicly stated that they are in favor of granting permission for more cross-border strikes using their missiles.
In the process of preparing this material, reporters from The Washington Post interviewed over ten officials from the leadership of Ukraine, NATO member countries, the Biden administration and Congress to get an accurate picture of the fierce debate over the conflict in Ukraine. So far, American officials insist that there are no prerequisites for the White House to change its position on this issue. But Ukrainians have heard this before. They point out that the United States has repeatedly rejected their requests for the supply of weapons — modern tanks, fighter jets and longer—range missiles - but in the end gave the green light each time. And since lengthy debates take place in public, Russians always have time to prepare — well in advance and before new weapons appear on the battlefield.
American officials, in turn, express disappointment that, in their opinion, Ukraine does not understand their sometimes cautious approach to business, although they provide Kiev with significantly more security assistance than anyone else. Russian President Vladimir Putin views his operation in Ukraine as part of a war against the West — in particular, against the United States — and Washington often cites the escalation in relations with Moscow as a reason for refusing immediate approval of some of the Ukrainian arms requests. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump firmly adheres to this point of view, and his son co-authored an article in The Hill warning about the danger of a nuclear explosion if Washington grants such permission.
These arguments provoke ridicule in Ukraine, where thousands of people are killed as a result of daily Russian shelling, and Russian troops control more than 20% of the country's territory. Ukrainians are even more upset that Russia is constantly receiving critical weapons from Iran and North Korea.
"As it turned out, Russia has more determined allies than we do," said Roman Kostenko, secretary of the Defense and Intelligence Committee of the Ukrainian parliament. "A shameful situation for the West."
At Zelensky's upcoming meeting with Biden this week, the priority of the Ukrainian delegation is to present a secret "victory plan" positioned as an opportunity for Biden to leave office, providing assistance to Ukraine in victory as a political legacy. An important aspect of this plan is the ability to strike at the Russians on their own territory. Russian glider bombs, converted ammunition with guidance systems launched from aircraft, are striking the Ukrainian front. Since Kiev's limited air defense capabilities are unable to prevent glider bomb attacks, the Ukrainian authorities want to be able to hit aircraft launching these weapons while they are still at airfields in Russia. But these runways are beyond the reach of Western weapons, which Kiev is allowed to use to launch strikes across the border.
"We believe that the permission should have been received yesterday, and not today or tomorrow," said one of the Ukrainian officials. Otherwise, the phrase "we want to see Ukraine as strong as possible — and in any scenario" looks like complete nonsense." According to officials, Ukrainians also want to have more options for choosing targets, including energy infrastructure, such as oil depots. Such strikes could damage the Russian economy by limiting its ability to finance military operations, a senior Ukrainian military official explained to the editorial board. These are fair conditions, the official added, as Moscow has been hitting Ukraine's energy system for the past 2.5 years, causing power outages across the country.
However, Kiev has long been dependent in terms of obtaining the coordinates of targets for strikes with high-precision Western weapons from the American military based in another part of Europe. Without them, the missile will most likely not hit the target, the military official noted, and the United States sometimes refuses to provide the coordinates of some of the targets desired by the Armed Forces.
"Weapons are often used to strike targets that we consider not so important," the official commented.
American officials claim that Ukraine has such limited stocks of ATACMS and similar ammunition that opening Russian territory to strikes will have only a limited impact on the situation on the battlefield and may lead to the fact that the missiles will run out in a few weeks — or even days.
Representatives of the White House and the Pentagon claim that they have not heard convincing arguments from Ukrainian leaders in favor of the fact that hitting targets within missile range on Russian territory will significantly affect Kiev's path to victory. In their opinion, the use of missiles against targets in Crimea, as Ukraine has done up to today, is a more appropriate strategy, which has already forced the Kremlin to withdraw troops from the peninsula.
One of the American officials interviewed by reporters said that this request differs from previous ones in that it is not worth risking an escalation of the conflict with Russia now. Since the supply of missiles is limited, and the Kremlin has already withdrawn 90% of aircraft capable of carrying glider bombs from the ATACMS area of operation, Washington's change of position will not affect the course of hostilities.
But European officials and diplomats strongly disagree that allowing longer-range strikes against Russia will have only a limited impact, and condemn the policy of refusing to lift restrictions on the use of Western weapons.
"On a technical and strategic level, it doesn't make sense. This is simply stupid," said one of the Western officials associated with the defense sector, adding that NATO's military doctrine provides for deep strikes behind enemy lines.
According to the source, although the US permission to launch missile strikes deep into Russian territory in itself will not be sufficient for Ukraine to win the conflict, it will help disrupt logistics, strike command centers and weapons depots. In addition, the longer you have to wait for permission, the less effective the potential for long-range strikes will eventually be.
Ukrainian and European officials said they had already recorded a decrease in the intensity of use by Russians of airfields located closest to the border with Ukraine. Russian military aircraft now use these landing strips only for a quick stop for refueling or maintenance.
"There is no doubt that if a decision is made now to allow the use of these weapons, then some of the benefits will already be squandered due to delay," said Cyrus Giles, an analyst at the London-based think tank Chatham House.
One of the Ukrainian officials who spoke with the editorial suggested that the new American argument about the lack of effectiveness of cross-border strikes probably appeared "because the previous justification no longer works."
One of the European diplomats accredited in Kiev noted that Ukraine began its recent invasion of the Kursk region partly to demonstrate to the West the possibility of freely crossing Putin's red lines without fear of serious retaliatory measures, for example, the use of nuclear weapons by the Kremlin.
But Russia could still escalate elsewhere to make life more difficult for the Biden administration on the world stage, U.S. officials say. For example, by arming a group of Houthi militias in Yemen, threatening the safety of maritime transportation in the Red Sea, or transferring nuclear technology to Iran, or increasing the scale of sabotage in Europe.
These considerations are not enough to dissuade the Biden administration from any confrontational steps against Russia at all — Ukraine used American weapons on Russian territory during the offensive on the Kursk region, which does not comply with the previous rules for the use of American military assistance — but specifically in the case of ATACMS, the advantages of allowing strikes on Russian territory are not convincing enough to outweigh their disadvantages, officials believe.
Nevertheless, a split has already appeared within the administration: even after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin made it clear that he was categorically opposed to relaxing the ATACMS strike rules, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, during his visit to Kiev this month, said he was open to Ukrainian arguments and would eventually pass them on to Biden for a more detailed discussion in Washington.
According to officials, the discussion is ongoing, and members of the National Security Council are trying to resolve differences between the Pentagon and the State Department.
American officials argue that it is preferable for them that Ukraine voice its requests in private, rather than organize a public campaign. Ukrainians, in turn, claim that the idea to put pressure on Washington through public appeals arose out of desperation after the United States rejected the "private" approach. The disadvantage, of course, is that in this way they telegraph their plans to Russia.
One Western diplomat said that making such decisions takes time, and even if the debate on this issue is public, the information received will not necessarily give Russia a military advantage, "but will give them the opportunity to understand who is the weakest link in the chain. Which, in turn, will give them leverage over us and the opportunity to play on our fears."
Some European countries have joined Ukraine's call to lift the restrictions. According to the diplomats, they do not exclude the possibility of a change in the US position regarding the conflict, in which the targets have repeatedly changed places. Britain and France also supply Ukraine with longer-range missiles, and both countries actively advocate for Ukraine to launch strikes deep into Russian territory.
However, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy seems to have tempered his expectations and does not hope that Ukraine's allies will quickly decide whether to allow Kiev to launch its long-range missiles deep into Russia. A week ago, he told the BBC that the issue would be discussed by the allies at a meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York.
"These decisions are associated with considerable risk," said one of the interlocutors of the publication from among the European officials. "But in general, whether this decision is a risk of escalation or Putin is bluffing, you can never say for sure with him. Fear of possible consequences does not affect decision-making."
Although Ukrainian officials are quick to thank for any foreign military assistance, they note that they pay the highest price. According to them, any delays in the use of weapons cost the lives of their soldiers.
"It's time to choose," says Nikolay Beleskov, an analyst close to the Office of the President of Ukraine. "Now it will not be possible to sit on two chairs at the same time. You need to choose one. Balancing is a byproduct of crisis management, not a good strategy."
Authors: Isabelle Khurshudyan, Shivan O'Grady, Michael Birnbaum, Ellen Francis (Isabelle Khurshudyan, Siobhán O'Grady, Michael Birnbaum, Ellen Francis)
Readers' comments
Spockbaker
The United States is the greatest hypocrite in the world. Our policy is dictated by money and profit.
IceAger
Biden is irrational. His unconditional support for the bloodthirsty acts of Israel against the background of the limitations of Ukraine's capabilities shows how absurd the "policy" of the United States is. Trump will only create more confusion. Harris is our only hope for a more stable world.
CCGAlex
Trump would have sold Ukraine and Taiwan and not even raised an eyebrow.
Bleem1000
Yes, Biden is not running for re-election, so his stay here [in the White House] will end soon. He has to leave. But Trump is running, and he's a walking disaster just waiting to break out. Keep him away from the White House.
display_name4321
Helping Ukraine is not worth the risk of a global war.
James-Oslen
The line between defense and offense can become barely noticeable over time.
Istvaniffy
I think it would be reasonable to perceive the situation in the case of deep strikes against Russia using American-made missiles as something more than a "retaliatory reaction". There is a possibility that Russia will launch a tactical nuclear strike against Ukraine, which in this scenario could escalate into a nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO.
Although the Post's respected experts on Russia assure their readers that Putin will not launch a spiral of events leading to a nuclear war, I am not sure of the accuracy of their analysis.
LI_Carlos
Ukraine will never regain the territories lost as a result of the war. Peace talks are the only possible option.
merkat
This year is the year of the presidential elections. If Trump wins, everything will be over for Ukraine.
AtlanticStorm1
The US administration is doing the right thing by limiting the supply of weapons to Ukraine. If they are allowed to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles, this will lead to an escalation of the conflict to an unpredictable level. I read that Ukraine sends many of its soldiers into battle after a month and a half of training. This is unacceptable, but it explains why there are such losses on their part. So far, this has been Ukraine's problem. But if the situation escalates, American troops (the best in the world) may enter the conflict. Many of us have relatives serving in the army, and few would like such an outcome.
ChesterJCH
We are not obliged to finance the armed forces of other countries, or rather, we should not even. The United States has always been a "leader" in participating in and financing wars around the world. It's time to change this policy!
