The United States has given Ukraine a powerful missile system that it kept during the first 20 months of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia, all without warning to the public. Consider it the most recent escalation in a world where war seems to be becoming worse all of a sudden.
In retaliation, Russia will threaten chaos. However, it appears that President Biden has finally come to the conclusion that helping the beleaguered country win on the battlefield—rather than just keeping it from losing—is the wisest course of action going forward in Ukraine. If true, it’s a long overdue display of American might that would be significant for Biden’s presidency and possibly aid his bid for reelection in 2024.
About 80 miles behind the battle lines, on October 17, Ukraine attacked a Russian airport, destroying many helicopters along with a large amount of other Russian weaponry. With explosives capable of destroying an entire fleet of aeroplanes arranged on a tarmac, the majority of missiles in Ukraine’s arsenal are unable to reach that far. The US Army tactical missile system, or ATACMS, was seen in Russian photos of the wreckage, and US sources told many news outlets that the US had now granted Ukraine the long-range missiles they have been begging for. It appears that Russia didn’t believe Ukraine would receive the missiles because they left helicopters open to attack.
Biden’s backing has been crucial since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, with the US supplying far more military hardware than any other country. However, Biden has also adopted a phased strategy in an attempt to prevent overt provocations that would inadvertently lead to a larger US battle with Russia. Biden may say his strategy has been successful because there hasn’t been a bigger conflict. However, he has also faced a great deal of criticism for denying Ukraine the tools it needs to achieve significant military advances.
Following one another, US weaponry that was once thought to be too dangerous to transfer to Ukraine—such as tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missile defence systems, and HIMARS medium-range missiles—has found its way there. Once the US opens the door, other friends of Ukraine and Europe frequently follow suit and supply their own cutting-edge weaponry. Russian warnings of catastrophic repercussions or nuclear reprisal have never come to pass. Critics of Biden argue that arming Ukraine earlier with Western weaponry would have prevented fatalities and expedited Russia’s defeat, with no negative consequences.
A few ATACMS hitting a few Russian targets does not guarantee that a new wonder weapon can quickly change the tide of the conflict in Ukraine’s advantage. The amount from the United States may be limited, and Ukraine may not receive versions with the kinds of warheads that have the greatest potential to damage Russia by destroying ships, bridges, and other major targets up to 100 miles away.
Notwithstanding, Biden’s willingness to go outside his personal comfort zone in endorsing the ATACMS delivery may indicate a newfound audacity at the White House in the wake of the Hamas terrorist assaults on Israel on October 7 and the consequent realignment of American and Western objectives globally. A cautious pace of advancement might have appeared acceptable when the only significant conflict that America needed to assist was the one in Ukraine. However, given that America is now required to sustain two conflicts, there is an increased need to strive for breakthroughs and quicken the pace in Ukraine.
Three events have altered how the US views Ukraine. First, there’s now a risk to ongoing financing. Despite Biden’s request for $24 billion over the next 12 months, further aid for Ukraine was not included in the temporary budget measures that Congress enacted at the end of September. That may have been covered by follow-up legislation, but Republicans essentially shut down the House on October 3 by firing their own House speaker, which threw a wrench in the plans for any upcoming legislation.
In Congress, the majority supports increasing aid to Ukraine; but, a conservative minority opposes it and is now using its veto authority to create a virtual microminority in the House. Although there is a possibility to obtain billions more for Ukraine, that could be the final large delivery received for some time, if at all. It’s time to turn American assistance into a decisive blow to Russian soldiers.
Another danger to Ukraine is the escalating Israel-Hamas conflict. Israel appears to have the unwavering support of the US, and Ukraine may now have to compete with Israel for scarce critical arms. Ukraine will have less resources available to it as Israel’s requirements increase. The United States must make every effort to put a stop to the conflict in Ukraine and concentrate more on the Middle East.
Thirdly, time is a factor that Russian President Vladimir Putin believes is in his favour. Putin is counting on electoral failures for Biden and other Western leaders who support Ukraine, as well as a growing sense of war fatigue among Ukraine’s friends. It is obvious that Putin expects to shut off help to Ukraine in 2024 if Donald Trump or another isolationist Republican defeats Joe Biden in the presidential race. The Middle East conflict will exacerbate war fatigue in the West, which is another reason to step up efforts to support Ukraine’s victory as quickly as possible.
A major step in Biden’s strategy to help Ukraine win would be a nationwide speech informing American citizens of the benefits of devoting billions of public cash to the country. Even his detractors hailed Biden’s brief but passionate address following the Hamas assault as a catalyst for why America will support Israel. It’s surprising that he has never presented the same case for Ukraine, given there is much merit to it: with no American casualties, a small portion of the US defence budget is supporting Ukraine as it challenges Russian military and political dominance. It is nearly impossible to get a better value.
Biden must also illustrate what winning in the Ukraine would entail. With enough ATACMS, Ukraine could be able to destroy Russian supply routes, harass Russian soldiers occupying Crimea, and possibly even compel Russia’s Black Sea fleet to leave the area. The other major request from Ukraine is for Western fighter planes to support the ground forces there and be used to fire additional long-range missiles. Even if such might not arrive until 2024, Washington might contribute to accelerating delivery—including the lengthy logistical trains that aeroplanes need. Without going far, Biden might explain to Americans that his administration is intensifying its efforts to support Ukraine because a more dangerous world requires greater American law enforcement.
By mid-2024, when voters would be determining whether or not to give Biden another term, the greatest outcome for him would undoubtedly be noticeable progress in Ukraine and a stabilising Middle East. In the Middle East, where Iran and a hornet’s nest of radical militias frequently upend order, Biden could have more sway over events than in Ukraine. Although Biden did not initiate any conflict, American people will assess him based on the decisions he makes.