Follow us on social

010-himars-in-jordan-dvids

When changing 'facts on the ground' could imperil Ukraine's bargaining position

The White House may say it wants diplomacy but its actions — sending more advanced weapons — could have the opposite effect.

Analysis | Europe

The U.S. may be finding itself in a paradoxical position in which the increasingly advanced weapons it is sending Ukraine may be undercutting the goal of pursuing a diplomatic end to the war.

At the beginning of June, Washington announced that it would be sending High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) that carry missiles with a range of 50 miles and are capable of striking inside Russia’s borders. At the same time, the UK announced that it was seeking U.S. approval to provide Ukraine with U.S. made M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems that have the same range and the same capability. The U.S. approved that provision too, and the UK announced on Sunday that they are sending the rocket system to Ukraine.

The HIMARS also have the capability to carry even longer range missiles, up to 186 miles. The White House has said it has “assurances” from Ukraine that it will not use the new weapons to strike inside Russian territory.

Nevertheless, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov cautioned the U.S. that the provision of these advanced rocket systems would be a "serious step towards unacceptable escalation." 

Putin says that the U.S. and UK announcements demonstrate the intent of the West to pursue “the sole objective of stretching out the armed conflict as long as possible.” Furthermore, he has warned that "if it now comes to rockets and they are supplied, we will draw conclusions from that and employ our weapons that we have in sufficient quantities to strike those facilities that we are not attacking so far.”

Lavrov went further, warning that “the longer the range of weapons you supply, the farther away the line from where [Ukraine] could threaten the Russian Federation will be pushed."

Ignoring this may not only risk prolonging the war, but it also risks imperiling Ukrainians with further violence and may ultimately be counterproductive to the West’s own goals. 

CNN has recently reported that U.S. officials have been meeting with their UK and European counterparts to discuss “potential frameworks for a ceasefire and for ending the war through a negotiated settlement,” even though they see “no real prospect for any diplomatic breakthroughs or ceasefires anytime soon.” Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that France and Germany lead a NATO bloc favoring negotiations, while the U.S. and UK lead a bloc that may favor continuing to send more advanced weapons.

Biden recently quoted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying that "ultimately this war ‘will only definitively end through diplomacy.’” He then provided a long list of U.S. weapons being sent to Ukraine. Biden then squared the two statements by explaining that, “every negotiation reflects the facts on the ground. We have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry and ammunition so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

Ignoring the Russian warnings against U.S. provision of long range missiles may be counterproductive to that stated goal.

The CNN report says one of the potential frameworks being discussed for a negotiated settlement is a four-point Italian proposal, calling for Ukraine committing to neutrality and not joining NATO, security guarantees for Ukraine, and negotiations between Ukraine and Russia on Crimea and the Donbas.

This proposal sounds a lot like earlier proposals Ukraine and Russia were apparently discussing with some promise. One of the tragedies of this war would be if it were prolonged only to arrive at the same settlement that could have been brought about many months, and many deaths, ago.

But in addition to the tragedy, sending the advanced missile systems to Ukraine risks undermining Biden’s stated goal of creating "facts on the ground" that put Ukraine “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” The current facts on the ground are consistent with the Italian proposal. Ukraine controls the whole country west of the Donbas and it can negotiate the future of the Donbas and Crimea.

Lavrov has clearly warned that provision of longer range missiles risks Russia pushing the border of the region they control further west. That would put Ukraine in a weaker position at the table, having to negotiate the reclamation of territory west of the Donbas.

Sending advanced missile systems with a range long enough to threaten the Russian state could not only prolong the war and cause more suffering for Ukrainians by extending the current battlefield, it could also, ultimately, put Ukraine in a weaker position at the negotiating table.


The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), much like the ones being sent to Ukraine. (US Army photo)
Analysis | Europe
remittance tax central america
Top photo credit: People line up to use an automated teller machine (ATM) outside a bank in Havana, Cuba, May 9, 2024. REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini

Taxing remittances helps make US neighbors poorer, less stable

Latin America

Among the elements of the budget bill working its way through the U.S. Congress is a proposal for a 3.5% tax on all retail money transfers made by all non-citizens residing in the United States (including those with legal status) to other countries.

Otherwise known as remittences, these are transfers typically made by immigrants working in the U.S. to help support family back home.

keep readingShow less
US capitol building washington DC
Top image credit: U.S Capitol Building, Washington, DC. (Bill Perry /shutterstock)

Congress moves to put the brakes on Trump's unilateral bombing

Washington Politics

As a fragile ceasefire takes hold between Israel, Iran, and the United States, many questions remain.

With Iran’s nuclear program unquestionably damaged but likely not fully destroyed, will the Iranian government now race towards a bomb? Having repeatedly broken recent ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza, will Prime Minister Netanyahu honor this one? And after having twice taken direct military action against Iran, will President Trump pursue the peace he claims to seek or once again choose war?

keep readingShow less
Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Ira
Top photo credit: Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran speaking at an event hosted by the Center for Political Thought & Leadership at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Israeli-fueled fantasy to bring back Shah has absolutely no juice

Middle East

The Middle East is a region where history rarely repeats itself exactly, but often rhymes in ways that are both tragic and absurd.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current Israeli campaign against Iran. A campaign that, beneath its stated aims of dismantling Iran's nuclear and defense capabilities, harbors a deeper, more outlandish ambition: the hope that toppling the regime could install a friendly government under Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran's last Shah. Perhaps even paving the way for a monarchical restoration.

This is not a policy officially declared in Jerusalem or Washington, but it lingers in the background of Israel’s actions and its overt calls for Iranians to “stand up” to the Islamic Republic. In April 2023, Pahlavi was hosted in Israel by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog.

During the carefully choreographed visit, he prayed at the Western Wall, while avoiding the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount just above and made no effort to meet with Palestinian leaders. An analysis from the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs described the trip as a message that Israel recognizes Pahlavi as "the main leader of the Iranian opposition."

Figures like Gila Gamliel, a former minister of intelligence in the Israeli government, have openly called for regime change, declaring last year that a "window of opportunity has opened to overthrow the regime."

What might have been dismissed as a diplomatic gambit has, in the context of the current air war, been elevated into a strategic bet that military pressure can create the conditions for a political outcome of Israel's choosing.

The irony is hard to overstate. It was foreign intervention that set the stage for the current enmity. In 1953, a CIA/MI6 coup overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s last democratically elected leader. While the plot was triggered by his nationalization of the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the United States joined out of Cold War paranoia, fearing the crisis would allow Iran's powerful communist party to seize power and align the country with the Soviet Union.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.