How strong do the calls for Ukraine to get long-range capability need to be?

Ostrich-like naysayers refuse the lessons of history and the realities of Putin’s Kremlin, choosing to believe Putin has limited objectives and is no threat to the United States.  They are wrong; it is in the vital national security interests of the United States to give Ukraine everything it needs – weapons and permissions – to defeat Russia — now!

It is long past time for Washington to stop dragging its feet and costing Ukrainian lives unnecessarily.

In this email, I provide two excellent pieces arguing against Washington’s timidity and for an American commitment to Ukraine defeating Russia.

The first is an interview with Ambassador John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a member of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation’s Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN).

The second is a timely and strong editorial from the Washington Post.

I highly recommend both.

John Herbst interview:

THE WASHINGTON POST

Opinion

Ukraine needs long-range missiles before winter’s onset

The U.S. wants more “clarification.” But Kyiv has shown what it can do, if it had the right weapons

‍

By the Editorial Board | September 22, 2024 at 7:30 a.m. EDT

The Biden administration is weighing whether to allow Ukraine to use Western-supplied long-range missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russian territory. After President Joe Biden met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the White House this month, officials said no decision was imminent; they have asked Kyiv for more clarification on how they weapons will be used. But the approval needs to come soon to allow Ukraine to take advantage of existing target opportunities across the border, before Russian President Vladimir Putin can further damage Ukraine’s vital infrastructure.

Ukraine is asking for permission to use Britain’s air-launched Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of about 155 miles and are good for use against high value, stationary targets. Mr. Starmer appears inclined to give the go ahead but wants Mr. Biden’s approval to show a coordinated strategy and preserve unity among Ukraine’s Western allies. Ukraine also wants U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems, known as ATACMS, with a range of nearly 200 miles. Ukraine has already taken delivery of some midrange ATACMS, with a 106-mile range, but with limitations on how they may be used. Mr. Biden seems less inclined to act quickly on Kyiv’s request for the ATACMS. But they should all be part of the package, since Ukraine urgently needs all the weapons it can get to continue to stave off Mr. Putin’s aggression.

Mr. Biden’s reluctance is rooted in his understandable caution about escalating conflict with Russia. The pattern started from the outset of Mr. Putin’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, and the formation of the Western alliance to back Ukraine’s fight for its sovereignty. Mr. Biden has responded to each of Kyiv’s requests for more lethal weaponry by weighing new weapons’ potential military utility for Ukraine against the risk their use could provoke a wider confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia. Mr. Putin has stoked the fear by issuing “red lines” and implicitly threatening nuclear war. But in each previous case — the delivery of tanks, then the transfer of F-16 fighter jets, then permission to attack on Russian soil — Mr. Putin has not followed through on his threats. There’s no reason to think now he would risk a wider war with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at a time when his forces are already severely depleted. More likely, he could align himself with Iran or its proxies to strike at U.S. forces in the Middle East — a risk worth weighing, but one that is not as dangerous as direct Russia-NATO conflict.

ROBERT MCCONNELL
Co-Founder, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
Director of External Affairs, Friends of Ukraine Network

The introduction is Mr. McConnell’s and does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation or those of the Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN).

‍