We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: Joe Biden’s approval for Ukraine to deploy American-made long-range ATACMS missiles against Russian targets has sparked significant strategic and diplomatic repercussions.

-While seen as a move to slow Russia’s advances in the Donbas and Kursk regions, the decision comes amidst criticism of its timing and potential for further escalation.

-In response, Russia introduced a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, signaling its readiness to escalate. This tit-for-tat dynamic complicates potential diplomatic resolutions, particularly as the incoming Trump administration could reverse Biden’s policy.

-Meanwhile, divergent strategies among Western allies like France and Britain suggest a growing transatlantic divide over Ukraine’s future.

Biden’s ATACMS Long-Range Missiles Decision: Escalation or Strategic Necessity?

The impact of Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to fire long-range American-made missiles at targets inside Russia continues to reverberate across the strategic landscape. Ukrainians and their backers in the West hope that the strikes will be sufficient to undercut Russia’s advance until winter takes hold. For its part, Russia has introduced a new missile to the conflict in an effort to deter the West and intimidate Ukraine. Every escalation in this war has had a political purpose, and consequently, it’s important to evaluate how this tit-for-tat will affect the diplomatic landscape of the conflict.

The timing of Biden’s decision was curious, subjecting the administration to criticism from both sides of the Ukraine debate. In late summer, Biden is said to have rejected a British proposal to allow Ukraine to use long-range munitions against Russian targets out of escalation concerns. It is also possible that the Biden national security team senses vulnerability to GOP “warmonger” attacks during the election. It hardly seems accidental that Biden waited until after the election before giving Ukraine the go-ahead to use the missiles. 

Indeed, the real driver for the reversal may be the military situation in Ukraine. Thinking within the administration may be that allowing deep strikes against Russian staging areas may be the only way to prevent a general Ukrainian collapse or at least to slow Russia’s advance. Although they are exacting a severe toll on Russian forces, the Ukrainians have not been able to prevent Russia from seizing territory in both Kursk and the Donbas. By some accounts,the Russian advance is accelerating, with some reports of demoralization on the part of Ukrainian forces following the US election. The onset of full winter is likely to slow the Russians but does not change the fact that Ukraine is struggling to reconstitute its defensive strength. 

Russia’s counter-escalation (it gets messy very quickly trying to determine who climbed which rung of the escalation ladder at any given time, as US officials have called the decision to use ATACMS a response to the deployment of North Korean troops) has thus far involved the use of a new intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying at least six independent re-entry vehicles. This missile was visually impressive and does carry some interesting implications for NATO missile defense, but it is in no way a game changer for the balance of capabilities between Ukraine and Russia. 

U.S. Soldiers assigned to the 65th Field Artillery Brigade fire a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) during a joint live-fire exercise with the Kuwait Land Forces, Jan. 8, 2019, near Camp Buehring, Kuwait. The U.S. and Kuwaiti forces train together frequently to maintain a high level of combat readiness and to maintain effective communication between the two forces. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Bill Boecker)

The more interesting questions regarding the escalation and counter-escalation involve how these missiles will affect a potential diplomatic solution. Incoming Trump officials have complained that they were not consulted about the decision and that they would have opposed it, but reversing the policy should pose no major problem once Trump reassumes office in January. If Trump wants to send a conciliatory message to Putin, reversing the ATACMS decision is an easy way to do it. If Trump would prefer to play hard-to-get with respect to a deal with Russia, he can quietly leave the policy in place. 

However, it is doubtful that France and Britain will go along with a reversal concerning the use of their missiles, but that’s a policy choice that Paris and London will need to live with. Reports that France and Britain are actively considering the deployment of troops to Ukraine serve to reinforce the growing gap between how Europeans and Americans are thinking of the war. From a diplomatic point of view, the commitment of French and British authorities to the survival of Ukraine gives Kyiv a vital bargaining chip while also ensuring that European attitudes and preferences will be represented at the negotiating table.

Ukraine War Gets Hotter By the Second…or Peace? 

Russia is fighting like it believes that one of two things is about to happen: a cease-fire that will freeze the lines for the foreseeable future or a collapse of Ukrainian resistance. Paeans, to the bravery and resilience of the Russian soldier, cannot hide the fact that Russia is running short of men and equipment and is expanding both at an unsustainable pace. At the same time, Ukraine’s prospects look bleak.

U.S. Soldiers assigned to the 65th Field Artillery Brigade, and soldiers from the Kuwait Land Forces fire their High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (U.S.) and BM-30 Smerch rocket systems (Kuwait) during a joint live-fire exercise, Jan. 8, 2019, near Camp Buehring, Kuwait. The U.S. and Kuwaiti forces train together frequently to maintain a high level of combat readiness and to maintain effective communication between the two forces. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. James Lefty Larimer)

U.S. Soldiers assigned to the 65th Field Artillery Brigade, and soldiers from the Kuwait Land Forces fire their High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (U.S.) and BM-30 Smerch rocket systems (Kuwait) during a joint live-fire exercise, Jan. 8, 2019, near Camp Buehring, Kuwait. The U.S. and Kuwaiti forces train together frequently to maintain a high level of combat readiness and to maintain effective communication between the two forces. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. James Lefty Larimer)

Throwing additional missiles into a conflict in which both sides continue to suffer grievous harm hardly seems like a good idea. Still, it is entirely in accord with the political and strategic logic that has come to govern this conflict. There’s nothing new under the sun, apart from horrible ways to be killed by long-range missiles. 

About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley 

Dr. Robert Farley has taught security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School since 2005. He received his BS from the University of Oregon in 1997, and his Ph. D. from the University of Washington in 2004. Dr. Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014), the Battleship Book (Wildside, 2016), Patents for Power: Intellectual Property Law and the Diffusion of Military Technology (University of Chicago, 2020), and most recently Waging War with Gold: National Security and the Finance Domain Across the Ages (Lynne Rienner, 2023). He has contributed extensively to a number of journals and magazines, including the National Interest, the Diplomat: APAC, World Politics Review, and the American Prospect. Dr. Farley is also a founder and senior editor of Lawyers, Guns and Money.