Missiles: Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia

Missiles: Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with U.S. long-range missiles. The Hawk and Dove Dilemma: A Stark Reversal in U.S. Policy on Long-Range Weapons for Ukraine

Using U.S. missiles into Russia. In a move that underscores a significant shift in U.S. policy, President Biden has authorized Ukraine to use powerful American long-range weapons to strike within Russian territory. This decision, confirmed by a U.S. official who spoke to NPR, reflects a remarkable evolution in the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine, one that may have profound implications for the conflict and global perceptions of American foreign policy.

The Policy Shift: Long-Range Missiles Greenlit for Russia

For the first time, Ukraine has been given the green light to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which can strike targets up to 190 miles away. This authorization allows Ukrainian forces to target Russian assets in and around Kursk, including weapons stockpiles, logistical hubs, and airfields. Such actions could disrupt Russia’s battlefield advances and its attacks on Ukrainian cities.

The policy shift represents a stark departure from earlier U.S. restrictions. Until now, the Biden administration resisted such measures, fearing escalation of the war. When the U.S. confirmed the delivery of ATACMS to Ukraine earlier this year, the missiles came with a critical limitation: they could only be used within Ukrainian borders. Now, those restrictions have been lifted, signaling a new phase in the U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s defense.

Escalating Stakes and Global Implications

This change comes as Russia’s aggression intensifies. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reported that on Sunday alone, Russia launched 210 missiles and drones, targeting critical infrastructure and energy systems in one of the largest assaults since the war began. Zelenskyy has long argued that strength—not diplomacy—will compel Russia to end the war, emphasizing that Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities are essential to its victory.

British officials are expected to follow the U.S. lead, likely authorizing Ukraine to use Storm Shadow long-range missiles within Russia. These missiles, which travel approximately 155 miles, contain U.S. components, requiring American approval for their use.

Limited Resources, Significant Consequences

Despite the authorization, questions remain about the impact of this decision. Ukraine’s supply of ATACMS is limited, with many already expended on targets within its own territory. A Capitol Hill source noted that while this policy shift is symbolically significant, it may not be a game-changer in the war, given the limited missile stockpile and Ukraine’s ongoing reliance on drones to strike Russian targets.

Ukrainian soldiers, however, view the change as long overdue. Maksym Sviezhentsev, a soldier and historian, lamented the prior restrictions, saying, “The U.S. support has been invaluable, but it has not been enough to let us win the war. How many lives could have been saved if these restrictions were lifted a year ago?”

A Changing Landscape as Leadership Shifts

This policy change comes as the global stage prepares for new leadership dynamics, with President-elect Donald Trump set to return to the White House. Trump has criticized the scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine, claiming he could end the war in 24 hours without providing specifics. Whether the new administration will maintain or reverse the authorization for long-range weapons remains uncertain, adding another layer of complexity to an already volatile conflict.

Ukraine Deaths Since Russia Illegally Invaded Them

Military Casualties:

• Ukrainian Armed Forces: Estimates vary widely. Some reports suggest that approximately 80,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since the conflict began in February 2022. Other sources indicate that the number of Ukrainian military personnel killed could be around 31,000. It’s important to note that these figures are difficult to verify independently and may be subject to underreporting or overreporting.

Civilian Casualties:

• United Nations Estimates: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has reported that, as of October 2024, approximately 12,000 civilians have been confirmed killed in Ukraine since the start of the invasion. This figure includes over 600 children. The OHCHR emphasizes that the actual numbers are likely higher, as the process of verification is ongoing, and access to certain areas remains restricted.

The U.S. History on Isolationism 

History teaches us that American isolationism in wars abroad often carries significant consequences, particularly when it comes to defending freedom and democracy. While isolationism has been a recurring theme in U.S. foreign policy, it has also been repeatedly challenged by the realities of global conflicts and the interconnected nature of modern geopolitics. Here’s what history reveals:

1. Pre-World War I: Reluctance to Engage

•   The Policy: The U.S. largely adhered to George Washington’s advice to avoid entangling alliances. This policy kept the U.S. out of major European conflicts throughout the 19th century, focusing instead on domestic expansion and hemispheric influence (e.g., the Monroe Doctrine).

•   The Consequence: By staying out of early conflicts, the U.S. avoided the financial and human costs of wars like the Napoleonic Wars. However, its absence from global diplomacy left Europe unchecked, eventually culminating in World War I.

2. World War I: Delayed Intervention

•   The Policy: The U.S. initially stayed neutral, avoiding involvement in what was seen as a distant European conflict.

•   The Turning Point: German unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann Telegram (Germany’s proposal to Mexico for an alliance against the U.S.) forced American intervention in 1917.

•   The Lesson: Early isolationism allowed the war to escalate, with devastating consequences for Europe. U.S. entry helped turn the tide, but delayed engagement arguably prolonged the conflict and its human toll.

3. Interwar Period: The Rise of Isolationism

•   The Policy: After World War I, Americans embraced isolationism, disillusioned by the war’s costs and skeptical of international entanglements. The Senate rejected the League of Nations, and neutrality acts were passed to avoid involvement in foreign wars.

•   The Consequence: Isolationism in the 1930s allowed authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan to expand unchecked. By the time the U.S. entered World War II after Pearl Harbor in 1941, Axis powers had amassed significant strength, making the conflict far more costly.

4. World War II: The Necessity of Engagement

•   The Turning Point: U.S. intervention was essential to defeating Axis powers and preserving global freedom and democracy. The war underscored the limits of isolationism in a globally connected world.

•   The Lesson: Delayed intervention came at a steep cost—both in terms of the devastation caused by Axis expansion and the resources required to defeat them. The war reshaped U.S. foreign policy, leading to a more active global role.

5. The Cold War: A New Era of Engagement

•   The Policy: Learning from past isolationism, the U.S. adopted a policy of containment against communism, engaging in conflicts like the Korean War and Vietnam War to prevent its spread.

•   The Consequence: While this marked a departure from isolationism, it also highlighted the challenges of prolonged interventions. Wars like Vietnam revealed the limits of military power in complex, ideological conflicts.

A Hawkish or Dovish Future?

The decision to authorize strikes within Russia challenges the traditional dichotomy of hawks and doves in American foreign policy. Historically, Republicans championed military might and intervention, while Democrats emphasized restraint and diplomacy. This move by a Democratic administration—combined with Trump’s non-interventionist rhetoric—flips that narrative, leaving observers questioning the future trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.

As the war escalates and the global stakes grow, the implications of this shift extend beyond Ukraine and Russia, forcing the U.S. to grapple with its evolving role on the world stage. The question remains: is this a momentary adjustment, or a permanent reshaping of American policy?