The New York Times reports Biden to approve Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles in Russia. The White House would neither confirm nor deny the escalation.
Use of Long-Range Weapons
The New York Times reports Biden Poised to Approve Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Western Weapons in Russia
President Biden appears on the verge of clearing the way for Ukraine to launch long-range Western weapons deep inside Russian territory, as long as it doesn’t use arms provided by the United States, European officials say.
The issue, which has long been debated in the administration, is coming to a head on Friday, as Britain’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, visits the White House.
Britain has already signaled to the United States that it is eager to let Ukraine use its “Storm Shadow” long-range missiles to strike at Russian military targets far from the Ukrainian border. But it wants explicit permission from Mr. Biden in order to demonstrate a coordinated strategy with the United States and France, which makes a similar missile. American officials say Mr. Biden has not made a decision, but will hear from Mr. Starmer on Friday.
On Thursday, White House officials insisted there was no imminent decision on the use of the American-made surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems — known as ATACMS. But Mr. Biden himself has signaled that a loosening of restrictions is coming. He was asked on Tuesday whether he was ready to grant the increasingly insistent requests from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. “We are working that out right now,” he said.
Quietly, Republican leaders in the Senate, especially Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, have been urging an aggressive response — a sharp split with former President Donald J. Trump.
On Thursday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia issued an unusually specific warning to the West, noting that the Ukrainians alone cannot operate the long-range missiles, because they require Western technical help and satellite guidance.
“This will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia,” Mr. Putin said, according to a report by the Kremlin. “And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.”
On-the-Record Press Gaggle
A White House On-the-Record Press Gaggle with National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby revealed little.
WSJ reporter: There’s been a lot of reporting that the coalition, the Western coalition, is going to lift a ban on Ukraine using long-range weapons in Ukraine. I’m wondering if you can give us a little bit of context of why this is now being seriously considered.
Kirby: There’s been no change to our policy, Lara, with respect to the long-range strike capability inside Russia, and I’d leave it at that.
AFP Reporter: Will the President be looking at approving just the use of British and French missiles with U.S. technology or navigational aid? Or is there a decision possible for the use of U.S. missiles in the future?
Kirby: Look, I can’t speak for the British or the French one way or another. What I said was I wouldn’t be looking for an announcement today about long-range strike capabilities inside Russia, certainly anything — certainly by the United States.
NYT Reporter: While I’m not asking you to speak for the French or the British, they have clearly indicated their increased willingness to allow that to happen. And I wonder if, from the U.S.’s perspective, the U.S. needs to give, either because of legal or political reasons, their blessing for that, or is that something that they can proceed with on their own, without the U.S.?
And then secondly, back earlier this week, when the President was asked a couple of questions as he got on Marine One, he was asked, you know, will you lift restrictions on the use of long-range weapons by Ukraine, and his answer was, “We’re working that out right now,” which definitely suggests at least a shift in the discussions. And I wonder if you could talk about what the — you know, kind of what the, you know, place — where those discussions are now, and if, in your view, they are closer to some sort of resolution than they have been.
Kirby: We are in constant contact with our allies and partners, and particularly the Brits and the French, as you indicate, about all manner of ways in which we can continue to support Ukraine. Of course, these are sovereign countries, and they have to decide what that support looks like in ways that they find amenable to them and to their population, and we respect that.
And I — all I can do to answer your second question is to go back to how I answered it before: There is no change to our view on the provision of long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside Russia, and I wouldn’t expect any sort of major announcement in that regard coming out of the discussions, certainly not from our side. I also leave it to the Prime Minister to decide what he wants to talk about.
Reporter Affiliation Unknown: On the first question, some people have suggested to me that there are perhaps, in the British and French missiles, that there are American components or that the missiles use American capabilities. So, from a legal perspective, do they need the U.S.’s permission to allow those to be used, given the current — where the U.S. currently stands? Or can they make that decision without the U.S.’s permission?
Kirby: I would just say that we continue to talk with both those countries and other allied countries about the kinds of capabilities that are being provided to Ukraine. And I’m going to leave it at that.
Reporter Affiliation Unknown: Putin publicly said that Western weapons striking deeper into Russia would, quote, “change the very essence of the conflict.” So my question is — and I realize there’s no announcement today, so no need to repeat that — but is this prospect of long-range strike weapons, in your view, the red line that Russia has said — that you actually believe constitutes a red line in Russia’s eyes?
Do you take Putin at his words that strikes into Russian territory by U.S.- or British- or French-made missiles would actually expand the war?
Kirby: It’s hard to take anything coming out of Putin’s face at his word. But this is not rhetoric that we haven’t heard from him before, so there’s really not a lot new there.
Reporter Affiliation Unknown: So, in other words, you know, in the deliberations about this long-range strike, threats from Putin are not a big factor for you guys in your deliberations on this?
Kirby: I never said, nor have I — would we ever say that we don’t take Mr. Putin’s threats seriously. When he starts brandishing the nuclear sword, for instance, yeah, we take that seriously, and we constantly monitor that kind of activity. He obviously has proven capable of aggression. He has obviously proven capable of escalation over the last, now, going on three years.
So, yeah, we take these comments seriously, but it is not something that we haven’t heard before. So, we take note of it. Got it. We have our own calculus for what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not. And I think I’d leave it there.
Why Even Bother With a Press Conference?
If all you are going to do is say “Our policy has not changed and I’ll leave it at that,” what the heck is the point of a press conference other than to look foolish?
Then again, we do have a dangerous admission that the neocon nutcases are willing to take Putin’s comments seriously, then ignore them.
Storm Shadow Missiles
The BBC comments What are Storm Shadow missiles and why are they crucial for Ukraine?
There are strong indications that the US and UK are poised to lift their restrictions within days on Ukraine using long-range missiles against targets inside Russia.
Ukraine already has supplies of these missiles, but is restricted to firing them at targets inside its own borders. Kyiv has been pleading for weeks for these restrictions to be lifted so it can fire on targets inside Russia.What Is Storm Shadow?
Storm Shadow is an Anglo-French cruise missile with a maximum range of around 250km (155 miles). The French call it Scalp.
Britain and France have already sent these missiles to Ukraine – but with the caveat that Kyiv can only fire them at targets inside its own borders.
It is launched from aircraft then flies at close to the speed of sound, hugging the terrain, before dropping down and detonating its high explosive warhead.
Storm Shadow is considered an ideal weapon for penetrating hardened bunkers and ammunition stores, such as those used by Russia in its war against Ukraine.
But each missile costs nearly US$1 million (£767,000), so they tend to be launched as part of a carefully planned flurry of much cheaper drones, sent ahead to confuse and exhaust the enemy’s air defences, just as Russia does to Ukraine.
What Difference Could Storm Shadow Make?
Some, but it may be a case of too little too late. Kyiv has been asking to use long-range Western missiles inside Russia for so long now that Moscow has already taken precautions for the eventuality of the restrictions being lifted.
It has moved bombers, missiles and some of the infrastructure that maintains them further back, away from the border with Ukraine and beyond the range of Storm Shadow.The Institute for the Study of War think tank (ISW) has identified around 200 Russian bases that would be in range of Storm Shadows fired from Ukraine. Some further additional bases would come into range if the US approves the use of ATACMS missiles in Russia.
But one ex-US official told the BBC that there was scepticism in the White House and the Pentagon about how much difference using Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia would make to Ukraine’s war effort.
Matthew Savill, director of military science at Rusi think tank, believes lifting restrictions would offer two main benefits to Ukraine.
Firstly, it might “unlock” another system, the ATACMs. Secondly, it would pose a dilemma for Russia as to where to position those precious air defences, something he says could make it easier for Ukraine’s drones to get through.
Ultimately though, says Savill, Storm Shadow is unlikely to turn the tide. Ukraine doesn’t have many missiles, and the UK has very few left to give.
Canada Fully Backs Ukraine Using Long-Range Weaponry
Reuters reports Canada Fully Backs Ukraine Using Long-Range Weaponry
Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to “prevent and interdict Russia’s continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure”, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday.
Trudeau told reporters that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to deeply destabilize the international rules-based order and added: “That’s why Canada and others are unequivocal that Ukraine must win this war against Russia.”
Putin Warns of ‘War’ with NATO
ZeroHedge comments UK’s Starmer, Canada’s Trudeau, Pressure Biden to Escalate with Russia Despite Putin Warning of ‘War’ with NATO.
Russian leadership has issued a follow-up statement to President Vladimir Putin’s Thursday brief video address warning that if the US and UK authorize Ukraine to pursue long-range strikes on Russian soil, then NATO and the Russian Federation will be in an official state of war.
On Friday Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, informed the UN Security council that NATO countries would “start an open war” in allowing Western long-range missiles to target Russia.
“If such a decision is made, that means NATO countries are starting an open war against Russia,” Moscow’s envoy introduced. “In that case, we will obviously be forced to make certain decisions, with all the attendant consequences for Western aggressors.”
To review of Putin’s firm words the day prior…
“So this is not about whether or not to allow the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia using these weapons, but of deciding whether or not NATO countries are directly involved in the military conflict or not. If such a decision is taken, it will mean nothing short of direct participation of NATO countries, the United States, European countries, in the war in Ukraine.
This would constitute their direct participation, and this, of course, changes the very essence, the very nature of the conflict. It will mean that NATO countries, the United States and European countries, are at war with Russia. And if this is so, bearing in mind the change in the very nature of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be posed to us,” Putin said.
War Fatigue in Central Europe is Spreading
Just as neocon nutcases are prepared to escalate the madness, War Fatigue in Central Europe is Spreading.
Like Poland, Czechia has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters since the earliest days of the war. Yet after more than two years of a conflict that shows little sign of ending, the mood has soured.
One of the latest surveys found that about 65 per cent of Czechs were in favour of an early end to the war even at the expense of territorial losses to Russia.
The STEM poll also found that a majority of the population opposes negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU (64 per cent) and is against continued military support to Kyiv (54 per cent).
According to the same survey, nearly half of Czechs oppose the government’s scheme to provide hundreds of thousands of artillery shells to Kyiv. When the messenger is disliked, the message itself often bears the direct cost.
Poland Tires of “Demanding Refugees”
In mid-June, the results of annual research into attitudes towards Ukrainian migrants coordinated by Robert Staniszewski from Warsaw University were published. “What really surprised us was that there was a significant drop in support on all matters related to helping Ukrainians, except for the issue of school attendance,” Staniszewski told the daily Rzeczpospolita.
According to the findings, 95 per cent of Poles believe that financial benefits for Ukrainian refugees should be reduced; 60 per cent also said they would like to see the refugees returning to their own country once the war is over.
Additionally, only 31 per cent of those interviewed were certain Poland should continue to support Ukraine, as compared to 62 per cent in January 2023. And 72 per cent of interviewees said that, regardless of the fact that the war is still ongoing, Poland should primarily watch out for its own interests.
The main reason Poles were less supportive of Ukrainians, as indicated by the study, is a perceived “demanding attitude” among the latter.
Hungary
Hungarian public support for Ukraine from the outset of the war was low and, according to Eurobarometer polls, has further deteriorated over the past two years.
The most recent survey, conducted in spring this year, found that only 56 per cent of Hungarians support the EU’s financial aid to Ukraine; less than half of society (45 per cent) agrees with the EU financing the purchase of military equipment for Ukraine; and even fewer, only 42 per cent, support Ukraine’s EU candidacy.
Germany to Stop All New Aid to Ukraine
On August 19, I commented Nord Stream Pipeline Blowback: Germany to Stop All New Aid to Ukraine
“(People) are worried about escalation of the war in Europe, unchecked immigration, rising criminality and constraints on the freedom of opinion,” said Sevim Dagdelen, a member of Sahra Wagenknecht’s breakaway BSW party.
War Will End with Negotiated Settlement
This war will end the way I suggested the moment Russia failed to take Kyiv, a negotiated settlement.
It was US meddling that led to this disaster with Senator John McCain fomenting the mess by backing Ukraine entry into NATO.
That does not excuse Putin’s reaction but it explains it. Then on the verge of a settlement UK prime minister Boris Johnson blew up the deal.
And here we are. Tens of thousands of lives lost, support for the war on the wane in the US and EU coupled with infighting in both the US and EU.
With Germany cutting off more funding and everyone tiring of the war, how can a negotiated settlement not be the end result?
Russia will take over portions of Ukraine, the same deal that was on the table long ago.
The idea that such an appeasement increases the odds of a Russia attack on Poland is absurd.
Russia could not even get a total victory against a very weak Ukraine and is militarily and demographically weakened considerably.
Let the war end. The outcome is written in stone.
How many more people have to die to reach that outcome is the key uncertainty.
Dangerously Close to Stupidity
There is zero chance Ukraine will win the war. Nor is there any chance Russia can take and hold all of Ukraine.
Despite support for war decreasing in Europe and among US voters who would rather spend money here.
However, and not unexpectedly, support for war by bureaucrats least impacted by war is on the rise.
The US, Canada, and UK appear prepared to give Ukraine long-range missiles to which Putin might respond with tactical nukes or drag the US into direct conflict.
“There’s been no change to our policy,” said National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby.
That’s not the least bit comforting.
Further escalations, and possibly a nuclear accident is on deck. It’s madness.