(This article has been updated with new information)
WASHINGTON – A decision to allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with U.S.-guided weapons appears imminent as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy seeks permission from Western allies at the United Nations General Assembly this week.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Ukraine wants to destroy Russian bases that have launched devastating airstrikes on residential areas and critical infrastructure, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that a Western-backed attack on Russia’s heartland would be too much for NATO countries. warned that it would draw the country into war.
In a war that has lasted more than two-and-a-half years, President Joe Biden and the Pentagon’s calculations remain murky.
The administration has balanced supporting Ukraine against unprovoked aggression, preventing widespread conflagration in Europe, and maintaining weapons stockpiles in the Pentagon’s own arsenal. Mr. Zelensky is expected to defend his claims in a meeting with Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House on Thursday.
But the feared red line with Putin arming Ukraine with Abrams tanks, long-range rocket artillery and F-16 fighter jets was crossed without sparking a broader war.
Read more: White House and Pentagon announce massive military aid package to Ukraine
What Ukraine wants
Early in the war, Ukraine deployed short-range precision weapons to destroy Russian command posts and supply depots. They worked, forcing the Russian military to move sensitive targets away from the front lines.
President Zelenskiy is now trying to take the fight deeper into Russia with longer-range missiles.
President Zelenskiy already has long-range precision weapons supplied by Western countries, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles. ATACMS have a range of up to 290 miles, while French and British missiles reach about 255 miles. However, precisely targeting that maximum range requires technical guidance that only the Department of Defense can provide, limiting its effectiveness.
U.S. policy has changed to allow weapons attacks into Russian territory near the Ukrainian border. But the ban on high-range targets remains in place, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The official said there are ongoing discussions within the administration about authorizing deeper missile strikes, but no decisions have been made.
Ukraine wants to destroy Russia’s ability to launch attacks with Soviet-era weapons launched from aircraft in Russian airspace that are equipped to glide to targets. So-called glide bombs have proven difficult to defend against.
How weapons will help in the fight against Ukraine and Russia
Russia has stockpiled big stores in the country to use bases outside the current range of Ukraine’s missiles to carry out airstrikes and conduct ground attacks, giving it a “huge advantage”, a senior researcher said. said Fred Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project. American Enterprise Institute.
“The more Ukraine is able to attack perfectly legitimate military targets that Russia is using to attack Ukraine, the more Russia will have to counterattack, and the effectiveness of Russia’s military actions will be diminished,” he said. “It will decline,” he said.
Ukraine uses the weapon for long-range attacks, highlighting its advantage in hitting targets inside Russia.
Most notably, last week, Ukrainian forces destroyed a Russian weapons depot about 340 miles from Moscow, in what Kagan called the third Ukrainian drone strike. The attack reportedly destroyed 30,000 tons of ammunition, “probably several months’ worth of ammunition,” Kagan said.
“We have seen a decline in the intensity of some Russian air bombardment operations after these attacks,” he said.
A long-range strike would force Russia to move its command posts, supply depots and airfields further away from Ukraine, according to a senior defense official who was also not authorized to speak publicly. Longer supply lines slow the replenishment of critical equipment, and longer flight times mean fighters have less time to wander once they arrive at a patrol area.
Beyond these tactical benefits, the strikes could have a larger strategic effect, officials said. Russia, which has dragged on a longer war and left hundreds of thousands of soldiers injured and killed, will have to reconsider its costs, officials said.
Why supplying arms to Ukraine is complicated
Escalating wars can have unintended consequences.
Russian military doctrine allows for the use of small tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Although the probability is low, the possibility of a nuclear weapon detonating cannot be ignored.
More directly, supplying Ukraine with precision weapons would mean a reduction in U.S. stockpiles. These would be in high demand in a conflict with North Korea, which constantly fires sabers wildly, or with long-standing Chinese plans in China and Taiwan.
Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the limited number of Western precision missiles used in Ukraine means the impact on Russia is limited and the potential cost of escalation is worth it. It means that there is no.
Kagan doesn’t buy that argument. There is no reason to believe that Putin’s threats are any more hollow than before, he said.
“To date, the burden has been placed on those who advocate allowing Ukraine to attack legitimate military targets in Russia,” Kagan said. “But I think the burden now needs to be shifted to those who argue that some fear of unspecified escalation should continue to be what holds Ukrainians back.”