Follow us on social

US closer to crossing another red line for Ukraine: ATACM missiles

US closer to crossing another red line for Ukraine: ATACM missiles

Report indicates that the long-range weapons may be in the next security package for Zelensky

Reporting | North America

The U.S. is poised to supply Ukraine with ATACMS missiles, according to an ABC News report on Saturday.

“They are coming,” an official said, adding that all plans concerning security assistance to Ukraine are subject to change. Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, are “on the table” for a future aid package, a second official told ABC. ATACMS missiles — which boast a range 190 miles or 300 km — could help Ukrainian forces strike targets in Crimea, regarded by top Ukrainian officials and many Western observers as the Ukraine War’s decisive terrain.

The planned ATACMS transfer has not been corroborated by any officials willing to speak on the record. "There's no decision on ATACMS right now," said White House spokesman John Kirby, according to ABC News. "As the president has said, they're not off the table… we continue to discuss the viability of ATACMS,” he added.

The reported decision to send ACAMS missiles to Ukraine, if confirmed, would follow a longstanding Western pattern of initially refusing to supply Kyiv with certain high-profile weapons only to reverse course as the war drags on. Senior U.S. officials asserted in the opening weeks of the 2022 Russian invasion that there are no plans to send Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine. They noted that these systems would need to be operated on Ukrainian territory by American troops, thus making the U.S. an active participant in the conflict.

Meanwhile, as late as January 2023, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley reportedly opposed sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine amid concerns that they don’t serve the Ukrainian military’s needs and are too complicated to operate, maintain, and repair.

The White House has since reversed its stance on both issues, supplying Kyiv with one Patriot system and approving the transfer of 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks.

The ongoing debate over deliveries of F-16 jet fighters is playing out in similar fashion. President Biden and top administration officials have repeatedly ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine over the past 18months, echoing concerns about escalation if the jets are used to strike targets inside Russia. The White House announced in August that it will begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s later this year, a dramatic volte face that is intended to lay the groundwork for Ukraine to receive and operate F-16s provided by U.S. allies Denmark and the Netherlands.

Saturday’s report is the clearest indication yet that the provision of ATACMS could follow this well-established pattern of months of hesitancy or even outright refusal followed by a stark, sudden reversal. Not everyone thinks it’s a good idea.

“As the Biden administration grows more desperate to show progress in the war, it is running greater and greater risks in daring Moscow to retaliate against the West,” the Quincy Institute’s Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe said Saturday after the news. “The danger is that we will only discover where Russia’s red lines are drawn after we have crossed them.”

The West’s “boiling the frog” approach to Ukraine aid appears to be premised on a range of calculations concerning Russian behavior and the war’s underlying dynamics. Western policymakers reportedly share the concern that a sudden, drastic surge in aid, marshaling the full might of NATO’s arsenal into colossal aid packages announcing all available weapons within a short time span, could invite catastrophic escalation up to and including the use of nuclear weapons and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

By spacing out deliveries of major weapons systems, the thinking goes, the West can slowly dilute Russia’s red lines and ramp up aid to Ukraine at minimal risk. Secondly, Ukraine’s armed forces (AFU) are limited in how much aid they can absorb by training, logistics, and maintenance requirements. Western governments can pledge everything at once, but it would still take years for the weapons to be delivered, deployed, and utilized in substantial quantities.

The ATACMS report follows closely on the heels of a surprise announcement by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian forces have begun using domestically produced long-range missiles. Zelenskyy said the mystery missile was used to successfully strike a target as far as 700 kms away, with the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, noting that the new weapon boasts an even longer range.

No details concerning this unnamed missile have been independently confirmed, nor has its existence been verified. Whereas the weapons provided by Kyiv’s western backers come with prohibitions on strikes against targets inside Russian territory, the AFU can use missiles it manufactures without any such constraints. Ukrainian officials made no secret of their plans for this new weapon: “Believe me, already very soon someone [in Russia] will be burned, and burned in the direct sense of the word,” Danilov said, according to the Washington Post.

Though ATACMS possess roughly four times the range of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, missiles being transferred by the U.S. to Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest that they significantly outrange the Storm Shadow missiles pledged and supplied to Ukraine by the British and French earlier this summer.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted in September 2022 that the provision of longer-range weapons to Kyiv is a “red line” that would make the U.S. “a party to the conflict.” Moscow’s response to such deliveries, threatened Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, will be to capture more of Ukraine’s territory: “The further you supply weapons, the further we will move away from our territory the line beyond which [Ukraine can strike Russia],” he said.

Signals that the U.S. is inching closer to greenlighting the provision of ATACMS missiles may have been spurred by disappointing battlefield developments. As the main thrust of Ukraine’s much-anticipated summer counteroffensive in the southern Zaporizhzhia region continues to yield marginal gains at a “slower than expected” pace, Western planners and policymakers are already discussing upcoming Ukrainian offensives in 2024 and beyond.

Though neither platform can make it to Ukraine in time for the summer counteroffensive, some military observers believe that F-16s and ATACMS can play a key role in Ukraine’s future attempts to recapture Russian-occupied territory in the country’s south and southeast.

File:ATACMSMay2006 (cropped).jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Reporting | North America
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

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.