Lawfare Daily: Ukraine, ATACMS, and Putin’s Nuclear Threats
Nov 22, 2024
auto_awesome
Anastasiia Lapatina, Ukraine Fellow at Lawfare, and Fabian Hoffman, a doctoral research fellow specializing in missile technology, dive deep into the ramifications of the U.S. decision to arm Ukraine with long-range ATACMS missiles. They dissect the strategic timing behind this shift and its significance for Ukraine's military effectiveness. The conversation also touches on North Korea's involvement, the complexities of nuclear deterrence, and the broader geopolitical tensions influenced by Putin's nuclear threats. A captivating exploration of war and diplomacy!
The U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with long-range ATACMS reflects a crucial shift in its strategic support, influenced by North Korean troop involvement with Russia.
Long-range weapons like ATACMS are essential for enhancing Ukraine's operational effectiveness by targeting enemy logistics and disrupting Russian military advantages.
Deep dives
Lifting Restrictions on Long-Range Weapons
The recent policy shift allowing Ukraine to utilize U.S.-supplied long-range weapons, specifically ATACMS, marks a significant change in American support for Ukraine amidst its conflict with Russia. This decision comes as a response to the presence of North Korean troops supporting Russia, which the U.S. perceives as a crossing of a red line that necessitates action. Prior to this, the U.S. had been hesitant due to fears of escalating conflict with Russia, particularly regarding the implications of allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory. By lifting these restrictions, the U.S. aims to bolster Ukraine's capacity to defend its territory and maintain a negotiating position in potential future discussions.
Impact of Long-Range Strike Weapons
Long-range strike weapons are crucial for disrupting enemy logistics and supply lines before they reach the front lines, thereby reducing the intensity of confrontations. The ability to target Russian military equipment and manpower during the pre-deployment phase can significantly impact the overall operational effectiveness of Ukraine's defense strategy. These weapons are not seen as game-changers on their own; rather, they serve as integral components of a more extensive operational picture. Together with other military assets, they enhance Ukraine's ability to conduct systematic strikes against critical targets, increasing the likelihood of defensive success.
Reasons for Delayed Weapon Transfer Decisions
The delay in lifting restrictions on long-range weapons for Ukraine can be attributed to a combination of strategic concerns and bureaucratic hesitance. The U.S. was primarily focused on avoiding wider conflict with Russia, particularly nuclear escalation, which led to a cautious approach in supplying Ukraine with advanced weaponry. Additionally, the deliberation and indecision in Washington reflected underlying fears of Russia’s potential responses and the implications for NATO. Ultimately, the urgency of the current geopolitical climate, given North Korean involvement, forced a reassessment of these constraints and prompted a more proactive stance.
Understanding the ATACMS System
ATACMS, or Army Tactical Missile System, consists of various missile types, including both cluster and unitary warheads, making it versatile for different combat scenarios. The distinction between the older cluster variants and newer unitary warheads is significant; while cluster munitions are effective for wide-area targets, unitary warheads deliver a concentrated explosive force suitable for high-value targets. There remains a degree of ambiguity about the exact types of ATACMS supplied to Ukraine, but it is clear that such weaponry has the potential to impact the battlefield dynamics. Understanding these distinctions is vital for assessing the operational capabilities granted to Ukrainian forces in their ongoing conflict.
After more than a year of pleas from Kyiv, the U.S. finally let Ukraine use Western long-range weapons for attacks inside Russia. Lawfare Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Fabian Hoffman, a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, to talk about the strategic and tactical effects of such attacks, what’s behind the timing of this decision, and why it took so long for the U.S. to finally change course.