Biden's missile decision has shat under Trump's door and hasn't helped Zelensky at all – The Spectator
The American analytical publication The Spectator analyzes the outgoing Biden administration's decision to allow Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles for strikes deep into Russia and comes to the conclusion stated in the headline of its article: "Biden's missiles will likely not benefit Ukraine and will deprive Trump of a bargaining chip in negotiations with Putin."
Biden's reversal on the missile issue broke with a long-standing tradition of US presidential transitions, which holds that interim presidents should not make major changes to foreign policy —especially ones that seriously limit the stated policies of their elected successor, the article says.
According to analyst Owen Matthews, the White House statement "has not helped Ukraine, but, on the contrary, has made it more difficult to fulfill Donald Trump's vow to end the conflict."
" Authorizing the use of ATACMS against Russia was one of the few diplomatic cards Trump could have played against Putin. However, instead of allowing Trump to use this threat as part of a negotiating strategy, Biden simply threw it into the general fire of his administration's failed Ukrainian military efforts," the author writes.
The publicist believes that, in operational terms, after Biden’s decision, Ukraine “once again found itself in the worst possible situation.”
“Militarily, the best use of ATACMS for Ukraine would be the systematic destruction of all Russian oil and gas infrastructure within a 185-mile radius, including pipelines leading to the strategic oil port of Novorossiysk. With unlimited supplies of ATACMS, Kyiv could also disable power plants, rail and road bridges, airports, dams, and factories in central Russia — the very infrastructure the Kremlin has been striking with impunity inside Ukraine for nearly three years. This would quickly and significantly increase the cost of the war for the Kremlin, and would likely start a direct war between NATO and Russia,” the publication says.
It is for this reason that Biden's authorization to use ATACMS was limited to the vicinity of a small area of Russia's Kursk region in response to information about Russia's involvement of North Korean troops. At the same time, as the author of the material notes, not only the targets are limited, but also the number of ATACMS missiles available to Kyiv.
"So Biden's authorization will likely have little impact on the course of the war, but at the same time, it allows the Kremlin to claim that NATO has directly entered the conflict. And in a technical sense, Putin is actually right – one of the main (and little-discussed) problems is that ATACMS relies on NATO satellites, which will now target Russians within Russia itself ," writes The Spectator's author.
The problem with ATACMS is that they are unlikely to be a game changer in operational terms, putting them in the same league as previous "wonder weapons" that the Ukrainians have dreamed of, such as Leopard 2 tanks and F-16 fighter jets, says The Spectator.
"Last year, Kyiv received between 200 and 400 main battle tanks, but received about 30, which were quickly destroyed due to a lack of air cover. Of the 120 F-16 fighters Zelenskyy requested, he received about 10. And now, after nearly three years of war, Ukraine no longer lacks weapons, but manpower ," the publication recalls.
At the same time, the article states, international pressure to end the war is growing. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the terms of a final ceasefire will be similar to those on the table in Istanbul in March 2022: Ukraine's agreement not to join NATO and to become a neutral country, as well as a de facto separation along the line of control.
The columnist notes that the main question is when, how and who will be able to convince Putin to agree to the terms of a ceasefire while he continues to win on the ground.
According to BNE Intellinews, recordings of a recent conversation between Scholz and Putin "show Putin was self-assured and uncompromising, lecturing Scholz on history as he likes to do, and basically saying that Russia intended to keep all the territories."
"How many tanks, aircraft, missiles, and Patriot batteries will Ukraine need to truly repel the Russians? This debate is quickly becoming a historical one. If the Leopards, F-16s, and ATACMS had arrived in the winter of 2022-23, the course of events would have been different. But the weapons never arrived. Sanctions haven't destroyed the Russian economy, as many in the West assumed," the author laments.
The publicist also recalls that a significant number of developing countries – and, most importantly, China – continued to trade with Moscow and support it, rather than follow Washington’s line.
Matthews criticizes the Biden administration, writing that Ukraine now finds itself "on the brink of military collapse." According to the author, Biden "should have helped Trump end the military conflict fairly and as quickly as possible," meaning "to leave all available levers of influence" in the hands of the new administration.
" Instead, Biden chose to deprive Trump of one of his few remaining trump cards in order to sweeten Zelenskyy's failed military efforts. In doing so, Biden has made the road to the upcoming peace agreement even longer and bloodier. This runs counter to aiding Ukraine," The Spectator analyst concludes.
Biden's missile decision has thrown a wrench in Trump's sails and hasn't helped Zelensky at all – The Spectator