The Ukraine war Trump could inherit after Biden's escalation
Category: News & Politics
Via: the-chad • 4 weeks ago • 22 commentsBy: F. Andrew Wolf, Jr. (The Hill)
The Neocons, " All of the Democrat Party, their European Allies and a small fraction of the Republican party" are hell bent on escalating the conflict.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by F. Andrew Wolf, Jr., opinion contributor - 11/21/24 10:00 AM ET
The stakes for escalation in Ukraine have been raised. The Biden administration has given the go-ahead for long-range missiles to be deployed for use in Russian territory.
A familiar pattern seems to have emerged regarding the war in Ukraine. President Biden has finally relented; after much discussion with the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the new head of NATO, the U.S. will permit the use of long-range American missiles in Russia.
Note the following sequence of events: For months Biden refused a weapons request from Ukraine, allegedly concerned it would lead to an escalation with Russia. Kyiv complains loudly to no avail. Yet, just when the deal seems dead, the Biden administration suddenly approves the request.
This sequence of events has played out before, and repeatedly. Ukraine has previously requested HIMARS, Abrams tanks and F16s — and in each case, the pattern of response was the same: first a refusal followed by prevarication, and then suddenly "permission granted," approximately at the moment when deliveries won't make a difference in the outcome.
Will the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, make a difference if it hits targets deep inside Russia?
There is a simple answer here. Moreover, this fact may explain the Biden administration's reluctance to respond to previous requests.
One factor is certainly relevant, Ukraine has only a limited number of ATACMS that it can get access to. Given their high cost ($1 million-$1.5 million per missile), Ukraine is expected to deploy ATACMS sparingly, focusing on operations targeting high-value objectives.
As a consequence, Kyiv's well-circumscribed capacity to strike targets deeper inside Russian territory is not going to produce any immediate or even significant change on the battlefield. While ATACMS has a longer range — 300 km or about 190 miles — this will not significantly advantage the Ukrainian military.
Biden has been thoroughly briefed by his Pentagon advisors. Although there were at one time hundreds of potential targets available for ATACMS, Russian airfields within their range have had their attack aircraft removed — evacuated deeper inside Russia.
Realistically, even if there were to remain a "target-rich environment" in Russia, Kyiv's inability to acquire a sufficient number of ATACMS to make a difference would preclude altering the trajectory of the war.
In fact, some analysts are actually underwhelmed. Defense Priorities, a U.S. foreign think tank that advocates broadly against American military involvement overseas, said the Biden administration's decision was "strategically unwise and operationally unnecessary."
"The move will not meaningfully improve Ukraine's military position, but it will intensify U.S. and NATO entanglement in the conflict and worsen the risk of Russian escalation — including possible retaliation on U.S. or European targets," said the think tank's director of military analysis, Jennifer Kavanagh.
Furthermore, Ukraine has already penetrated deeper inside Russia using domestically produced, cheaper drones, funded by the U.S. These platforms have for some time created havoc in Russia, harassing Moscow's airports and across Russia's energy infrastructure.
And certainly, the entire idea of a foreign nation seeking White House permission to employ U.S. precision-guided missiles to strike deeper inside Russia (or any other country) is, without reservation, deeply provocative — drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict.
While President Putin, himself, has on several occasions admitted that Moscow is no match for NATO in a conventional conflict, eventually, the Kremlin will begin to more fully restore its deterrent capabilities regarding its borders.
There have alreadybeen allegations over the last several weeks of Russian intelligence assets harassing civilian targets throughout the European Union. Just recently, Western intelligence reports suggested explosive devices were placed on courier aircraft traveling across Europe.
The Biden administration is taking a calculated risk in its decision to permit long-range missile strikes inside Russia. They are essentially weighing the reasonable utility of these missiles putting Kyiv in a better negotiating position with the Kremlin vis-a-vis the potential for damage to U.S. or NATO assets, if Moscow honors its threat to strike back should such missiles be implemented.
Ukraine has responded to the White House's reversal with plans to conduct its first long-range attacks in the coming days, sources said, without revealing details due to operational security concerns.
The change in the Biden administration's position comes largely in response to Russia's deployment of North Korean ground troops to supplement its own forces, a development that has caused alarm in Washington and Kyiv, a U.S. official and a source familiar with the decision said.
Yet, one cannot help but note the timing surrounding the Biden administration's sudden acquiescence to Kyiv's repeated requests after so many refusals. Could it be that Biden (prior to leaving office) is determined to send a message and leave his "mark" in his latest decision to potentially escalate the war in Ukraine?
First, is the president intent on demonstrating his resolve to defend liberal democracy in Europe by supporting Ukraine? On the other hand (given what transpired before and during the recent U.S. election) is Biden intent on showing the world that he is not a weak president or person? Is he using Ukraine as a worthy means to demonstrate this?
Second, is Biden risking escalation in Ukraine with the ATACMS decision in order to obfuscate the political situation for the man who will succeed him in that office?
President-elect Donald Trump asserted rather strongly during his campaign that the Ukraine conflict (which Biden has orchestrated and supported with relentless pursuit) would be over within 24 hours of his taking office as president.
I believe we might have a lot of answers even before the president-elect assumes office.
The fact that Biden procrastinated so long before granting his permission, to what clearly is an overture to escalation, provides at least "extraordinary symbolism" to the moment and seriousness of the decision he just made. Let us hope it was about democracy for Europe, not derogation for another.
Trump may believe he can talk peace in Ukraine. Unfortunately, what he might actually inherit is a war where the stakes just significantly escalated.
F. Andrew Wolf Jr. is the director of The Fulcrum Institute, an organization of current and former scholars in the humanities, arts and sciences.
Tags Donald Trump F16s Joe Biden NATO-Russia relations North Korea Politics of the United States President Joe Biden President Putin russia Russo-Ukrainian War ukraine Ukraine-NATO Vladimir Putin
Tags
Who is online
422 visitors
This from the Neocon Filth that infects the current administration.....
At this point of the war, Ukraine has sold off over 30% of their agricultural land to US owned companies. Polish officials are sounding the alarm that much of the aid money is being funneled back into the US.
Neocons......many of you voted for them.
Biden & co are bitter and angry.
I remember when liberals were antiwar. WTF happened. Now there isn't a weapons manufacture or defense contractor they wouldn't share a bed with.
TDS does strange things.
watch "mr art of the deal" totally capitulate to putin in both of their quests to undermine european democracies, making trump and his supporters russian collaborators in the US. then watch what happens next ...
Rachel Maddow? LOL
Maybe Musk will buy MSNBC and make her the janitor.
You need to fix your "shift" key
I'd rather fix yours ...
What did he call them? Useful idiots???
Blah, blah, blah. Old fiction.
like that oath to defend the constitution, for some apparently ...
Are you pathetically trying to make it personal?
Nope, Carnac the Magnificent returns!
Russia is no threat to European Democracy. It can't even handle a third world shit hole like Ukraine- who fights exactly like the Russians do. Think it could handle the US? Fuck the worthless asses in NATO who would be along for the ride. Russia attacks a NATO country and Putin had better be prepared to end the planet; because Russia would badly lose a real war against the US alone.
Ukraine isn't a fucking Democracy. Zelenskyy has shut down all media except for state run; he has imprisoned political opponents and anyone that doesn't agree with him; and he has given Nazi/Fascist factions key rolls in both the military and government.
Zelenskyy has stayed well past his time in office. Using the war as an excuse to not hold elections.
Democrats claim to be "anti Fascist" but they sure as hell are supporting them in Ukraine. Waiting for someone to answer what Ukraine supplies that we can not do ourselves. What tactical goal is there for continuing to supply Ukraine and drain US resources; and possibly spark a much larger conflict? It isn't to downgrade the Russian military- that was done long ago. Russia is yanking tanks and cannon out of moth balls to fight. They are sending raw recruits to fight on the front lines. They have been drained of advanced weaponry. They used to be the #2 arms dealer in the world behind the US. Now they are forced to make bad deals with China, North Korea, and Iran to get drones, munitions, and arms. It will take decades for them to rebuild their military; and that is assuming they learn how to fight a modern war and build it the right way.
This is Democrats still being butt hurt over the 2016 elections. Putin didn't change one damn vote. Russia spent very little money on social media adds. They played both sides off against each other. Putin probably couldn't believe his luck that Hillary ran such a shitty campaign and ignored fly over country.
This is Biden trying to create a scenario to hamstring Trump before he takes office; and ensure that a country he and his son took millions from continues to get billions in tax payer aid and military hardware.
At least Trump has the common sense to know that Ukraine can't ever win a war of attrition with Russia. Did Biden intend to bleed Ukraine dry?
Both sides now know that a deal is the only way out. That is why the war has escalated to gain territory. Trump knows that a historic deal (his ego won't settle for anything less) requires getting things that actually benefit Ukraine. That would be security & having it in a strong position for the future. Putin will want something as well. He will never accept Ukraine as a NATO member, nor does he like the idea of Ukraine even being an EU member. Both sides will want the territory they hold at the time of the deal. Those items are an unavoidable part of the mix. If anyone can do it, it's Trump.
England and France supposedly considering european troops.
Though I can't see that ending well, at all, bully for them. but keep us out of it.
paying for the destruction of the russian military by a third party is the best money we've ever spent ...
Actually we got a lot of that money back in orders from NATO and non NATO countries for our weapons systems.
we should have been sending them the operational military hardware that we're replacing and taking out of service. we're storing it for use against the russians anyway ...
Leaving ourselves short on automated mobile artillery, munitions, and running ourselves billions further into debt has to be the dumbest money we have ever spent.
I am sure Biden's buddy Xi in China is loving every minute of the US overextending itself in Ukraine and the ME.