The Biden administration is facing a difficult and fateful decision. Despite mounting pressure from U.S. lawmakers and pleas from the government of Kyiv, the Biden administration is standing firm in denying Ukraine’s capital a supply of long-range missiles.
The main reason for this denial is the U.S. government’s concern about its own supply of these missiles. According to Politico, “The Biden administration wants to ensure enough ATACMs for the U.S. military.” U.S. officials have recently expressed these concerns to representatives from Kyiv, stating that they don’t have any Army Tactical Missile Systems to spare.
Sending these missiles could also potentially escalate tensions and start World War III, but according to Yahoo News, “the Biden administration seems to be shrugging off that concern.”
A senior DoD officer further explains that the U.S. always considers its readiness and own stocks while providing Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield, which is why the U.S. is cautious about giving away its missiles.
Additionally, the move to provide Ukraine with ATACMs is seen as too aggressive by the standards of the Biden administration. Despite the initial refusal, Ukraine insists on receiving more advanced weaponry, with ATACMs at the top of their list.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken out in January, stating that “Ukraine needs long-range missiles” to effectively target Russian occupations beyond their own frontlines.
However, it’s crucial to address the root cause of the war instead of just focusing on the present situation. Ukraine’s history with Russia dates back decades, and tensions escalated when Ukraine sought to join NATO. President Vladimir Putin of Russia sought to prevent Ukraine’s alignment with the United States and its allies, demanding assurances from NATO about Ukraine’s membership and troop deployment.
Despite the past, Ukraine may need more than just a few missiles to end the war initiated by Russia. Kyiv has asked for hundreds of missiles to halt Russia’s advances.
As House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul stated, “There’s no reason to give Ukraine just enough to bleed but not enough to win. If we’re going to be helping them, [we] either go all in or get out.”
The main reason for this denial is the U.S. government’s concern about its own supply of these missiles. According to Politico, “The Biden administration wants to ensure enough ATACMs for the U.S. military.” U.S. officials have recently expressed these concerns to representatives from Kyiv, stating that they don’t have any Army Tactical Missile Systems to spare.
Sending these missiles could also potentially escalate tensions and start World War III, but according to Yahoo News, “the Biden administration seems to be shrugging off that concern.”
A senior DoD officer further explains that the U.S. always considers its readiness and own stocks while providing Ukraine with what it needs on the battlefield, which is why the U.S. is cautious about giving away its missiles.
Additionally, the move to provide Ukraine with ATACMs is seen as too aggressive by the standards of the Biden administration. Despite the initial refusal, Ukraine insists on receiving more advanced weaponry, with ATACMs at the top of their list.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken out in January, stating that “Ukraine needs long-range missiles” to effectively target Russian occupations beyond their own frontlines.
However, it’s crucial to address the root cause of the war instead of just focusing on the present situation. Ukraine’s history with Russia dates back decades, and tensions escalated when Ukraine sought to join NATO. President Vladimir Putin of Russia sought to prevent Ukraine’s alignment with the United States and its allies, demanding assurances from NATO about Ukraine’s membership and troop deployment.
Despite the past, Ukraine may need more than just a few missiles to end the war initiated by Russia. Kyiv has asked for hundreds of missiles to halt Russia’s advances.
As House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul stated, “There’s no reason to give Ukraine just enough to bleed but not enough to win. If we’re going to be helping them, [we] either go all in or get out.”