The U.S.’ Indecision on Long-Range Strikes into Russia is Emblematic of a Larger Failure

President Joe Biden meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mariinskyy Palace, Monday, February 20, 2023 (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

Jack Greenspan

The United States has been a major force on Ukraine’s behalf, sending Ukraine $55 billion in military assistance since the start of Putin’s full-scale invasion. This assistance has been vital: without it, Russia would almost certainly be occupying more Ukrainian land than it currently is. 

The United States is supporting the righteous cause, but it is not totally altruistic: America has a significant interest in ensuring that Putin’s neo-imperialism starts and stops at Ukraine’s borders. If Putin is left unchecked, he could try to extend his ‘sphere of influence’ by force, launching full-scale invasions of countries that the Russian military has already entered. It could even mean that Putin would test NATO’s resolve by launching a military incursion into Poland, Finland, or the Baltics. In any scenario, the United States would almost certainly commit billions of more dollars, and potentially even troops.  

Despite America’s interest in supporting Ukraine, the United States has failed in one major respect: trusting Ukraine to use American weapons in a responsible manner. Currently, President Biden is considering allowing Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory. However, while President Biden bides his time, Russia does not hesitate to strike civilian targets within Ukraine. This delayed response is unfortunately nothing new in U.S.-Ukraine relations. America’s failure to act decisively is hurting Ukraine and, by extension, itself. 

A Poor Signal to Allies and Enemies Alike 

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has continually dragged its feet when responding to Ukrainian military requests. Just a few months ago, Ukraine was unable to hit targets inside of Russia, despite having the weapons to do so. The Russian army used this to its advantage, placing military infrastructure right inside Russia to avoid destruction by Ukraine. Only after weeks of deliberation did the United States approve short-range strikes into Russia. In 2022, it took nearly a year for the United States to approve the use of Abrams tanks, finally approving only after Germany approved the transfer of its own Leopard tanks. Finally, the United States waited nearly two years to approve the transfer of ATACMS to Ukraine, which limited Ukraine’s ability to hit targets deep behind enemy lines.   

This poor decision-making process has the potential to scare allies and embolden our adversaries. In fiscal year 2023, the United States transferred nearly $81 billion in arms to our allies, including billions to allies who face serious threats, such as Poland, South Korea, and Japan. However, if any of these countries were invaded, could they strike into the invading country with American weapons? The United States’ policy towards Ukraine raises the possibility that the answer may be ‘no,’ meaning that our allies have to adjust military strategy. On the flip side, America’s adversaries may feel more confident about targeting countries with American weapons, a dynamic that is already playing out in the South China Sea. The Philippines, to whom the United States has sent multiple shipments of weapons, has increasingly been the victim of Chinese military incursions in the Sea. The Chinese military has been using “gray zone tactics, aggressive moves that fall short of inciting all-out war” against Filipino ships in the sea. While other forces are partially at play, the lack of policy clarity from the United States regarding its allies’ use of weapons may be emboldening China. If the Philippines cannot use American weapons against it, China may reason, then the Filipino military is reduced in its capacity to fight back in a potential hot conflict. 

Reducing Ukraine’s Advantage

It is a given that in conflict, militaries must act with speed and decisiveness, otherwise opponents have an opportunity to gain the upper hand. In comparison, however, the United States’ decision-making process has been slow and meandering. Currently, Ukraine must mount diplomatic and public relations efforts to convince its partners to allow it to use its arsenal as it sees fit – a process that can take weeks, if not months.  

Some, like Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, have argued that strikes into Russia would not be a ‘silver bullet’ that permits Ukraine to shift the tide in this conflict. Indeed, few believe that long-distance strikes into Russia could have a great impact. But looking at the broader picture, seemingly small military advantages could have compounded over time. Each individual delay in sending weapons has collectively cost Ukraine years of fighting with inferior weapons and strategy. It is impossible to foresee how the war would have turned out had Ukraine had access to ATACMS, Abrams tanks, HIMARS, and other weapons from day one of Russia’s invasion, but Ukraine would certainly be in a better position. Instead of full support, however, Ukraine is left to lobby its closest ally for permission while Russia utilizes its own weapons to their fullest capacity. 

Putin’s Nuclear Threats

Throughout Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and even before, Putin has made veiled threats at utilizing its nuclear arsenal. The United States has taken these threats seriously: President Biden’s guiding framework has been ‘to avoid World War III’ — presumably a scenario that involves nuclear weapons. President Biden’s logic makes sense: the consequences of World War III would be so catastrophic that it should be avoided at most costs, even if it means denying Ukraine additional means to sustain its defense. However, this logic only makes sense if Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons are credible. On the contrary, Russia has demonstrated that its nuclear threats are simply cheap talk. 

Russia uses nuclear threats when it is weak, rather than when it is strong. In 2022, when Russian forces failed to achieve the quick victory that they expected, Putin increased the frequency of nuclear threats. Now, Russia is facing a difficult campaign to retake Kursk oblast and make further advances into eastern Ukraine. Russia has made yet another nuclear threat in an attempt to dissuade the United States from allowing Ukraine to strike deeply into its territory. Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of Russia's Duma, stated that Russia “will be forced to respond using more powerful and destructive weapons” if the United States and its allies give Ukraine permission to strike further into Russia. It is no coincidence that Russia is issuing more nuclear threats. The Ukrainian incursion into Kursk weakened Putin, and now he is responding with threats.

These threats do not cost Russia anything to make, yet Western leaders continue to take them into account. Besides verbal threats, there is no evidence that Russia is (or ever has) seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Ukraine or anywhere else. By taking these threats into account, though, the United States empowers Russia to continue issuing these threats. Until Russia shows actual signs of acting on its nuclear threats, the United States should disregard these threats as the cheap talk that they are. 

Some may argue that waiting an additional week or two would not substantially hurt Ukrainian military efforts while it would allow the United States to thoroughly explore the implications of changing policy. However, this policy examination is focused on avoiding the worst-case scenario – a nuclear war with Russia. This scenario is so unlikely based on Russia’s current actions that any consideration of causing nuclear war by sending missiles should be disregarded as a waste of time. It is not just a waste of time for Americans, but a waste of time for Ukrainian leadership, which has consistently engaged in lobbying efforts targeted at U.S. policymakers. In a war that is about survival, every additional day of lobbying is one fewer day that can be spent on addressing what actually matters. 

We Must Trust our Allies

A strategy that is dictated by unproven fears of Russian retaliation rather than military best practice is bound to fail. The United States has continually feared sending certain weapons or allowing Ukraine to take certain actions out of fear of escalation. However, Russia is the instigator in this conflict, not Ukraine. A strong defense of Ukraine sends a message to Russia and America’s other adversaries that our partner’s sovereignty must be respected. On the other hand, weeks of deliberation in the face of Russian cheap talk only encourages further bluster by Putin and his cronies. 

Now is the time to empower Ukraine to fully fight for its own defense. We cannot send weapons to Ukraine without trusting them to make reasonable choices about how to use those weapons. In a perfect world, the United States would be proactive in removing limitations on Ukraine’s usage of American weapons. In practice, though, the United States must at least act quicker in approving Ukraine’s requests, saving its leaders precious time and getting weapons onto the battlefield quicker. 

Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty, and it must be allowed to act within the bounds of international law. The United States must trust its allies and ignore bad-faith nuclear threats. Delays in decision-making only serve one country: Russia.