Biden's last-minute missile moves for Ukraine are coming far too late, weakening their effect on the Russians
- The US gave Ukraine permission to strike Russia with US-provided long-range missiles.
- But the late hour on this decision limits the impact.
- Russia has used Western hesitancy and the time provided by delays to move many targets out of range.
President Joe Biden is letting Ukraine strike inside Russia with its long-range missiles as he rushes aid to Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, but the move has come so late that warfare experts don't expect it to make a huge difference.
As the West debated, Russia was given time to prepare while Ukraine was left to fend off attacks with a hand tied behind its back. Even now, there are still some limitations.
George Barros, a Russia analyst at the Institute for the Study of War in the US, told Business Insider: "It's way too little, years late. It's been a truism that Ukraine has needed the capability to strike the Russian rear for many years at this point."
Targets moved
Ukraine used its MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems, a Lockheed Martin weapon with a maximum range of about 190 miles, to hit Russia for the first time this month. It then followed with Storm Shadows. Damage was done, but this capability would have had more of an effect earlier in the war.
Matthew Savill, a former intelligence analyst at the UK Ministry of Defence who's now a military expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said that "many of the best targetsβ helicopters and glide-bomb-armed aircraft attacking Ukrainian cities and troops in the north or in Kurskβ have largely moved to airbases outside the range of ATACMS."
Ukraine's military tried to strike those key targets, such as ammunition depots, airfields, and fighter-bombers, with its domestically produced long-range drones to curb Russian glide-bomb attacks, but missiles would have had a greater effect.
A senior Biden administration official told Politico in August that Russia had already moved 90% of the planes that launch glide bombs at Ukraine's civilian infrastructure out of ATACMS range. And a central European defense official told Reuters this month that Russia had moved many of its air assets out of range of Western weapons.
Michael Bohnert, a warfare expert at the RAND Corporation, told BI that Biden's change wasn't "too little, too late" but that "the delay will definitely limit the effectiveness of ATACMS strikes."
"Had Ukraine been able to destroy several squadrons of Su-34 and Su-35 fighters early in the year, then Russia would have significantly less capacity to employ glide bombs against Ukrainian positions and civilians," he said. Ukraine has been hit by thousands of guided glide bombs over the course of the year.
Earlier in the year, ISW had a map that identified nearly 250 potential ATACMS targets inside Russia. Many of those may no longer be viable targets.
A pattern of late aid
The US and other allies have been repeatedly criticized for slowness and hesitancy in giving Ukraine aid and permissions.
Soldiers in Ukraine have said Western aid coming in "tidbits" means they can't plan long-term, not knowing what will arrive and when. One American fighting in Ukraine told BI that "it feels like everything that we've been getting has been either too late or it's just enough to barely hold on."
Ukraine usually gets what it needs eventually, but rarely when it really needs it. And the weaponry, such as F-16s and advanced tanks, are often given in amounts so small that they can't make a substantial difference. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said as much, matching analyst assessments.
The head of NATO has also been critical of member countries, saying they could do more to help Ukraine. There's been a hesitancy that comes from a fear of escalation.
Barros argued that the "Russian red lines are part of Russian reflexive control efforts that seek to trick the US and partners into accommodating Russian interests and counter Russian aggression in wars Russia started."
He said that "Putin is not entitled to a veto over US or NATO policy on the basis that he can threaten us."
Hitting Russia
Biden's decision may be late, and the impact may be limited. But that doesn't mean there won't still be an effect.
Bohnert said that Ukraine could now use its Western weapons to try to "disrupt logistics and mobility of Russian and North Korean forces counterattacking in Kursk," giving Ukraine's forces more freedom of maneuver.
Ukraine advanced into Russia's Kursk region in August, where its military is now fighting Russian and North Korean troops.
Savill said that Biden's decision "still leaves plenty of opportunities to strike military headquarters and ammunition or supply locations supporting Russian and North Korean troops" but that "this would be a reduced impact from when the Ukrainians first requested these weapons."
A rush to help Ukraine
Biden has boosted support for Ukraine ahead of Trump's inauguration by rushing aid out, loosening restrictions, and offering greater financial support.
Trump hasn't announced a plan but has been critical of US aid to Ukraine. Some, including in Ukraine, are optimistic that Trump could end the war. But Trump has also hinted at seeking a peace deal, something that could try to push Ukraine to do things it doesn't want, such as giving territory to Russia.
Savill said of Biden's missile decision that "the impact may be more political, albeit with a narrowing window of opportunity."
He said Ukraine needed to "convince the incoming US administration that they are still worth backing β in President Trump's transactional view, a 'good investment,'" adding that "they will want to convince him to link his and US credibility to a 'winning' outcome, not a major compromise that sees the US 'lose.'"
Politically, "the signs are not positive on this front," he said, as big Trump allies have criticized the ATACMS move, especially after Russia signaled its discontent with an unusual new missile strike.
And realistically, the decision delays on the Biden administration's part have probably hindered Ukraine's ability to show strength for political gain, Savill said. "It is unlikely that the Ukrainians can have a major impact in such a short period of time (under two months) until the next administration is formally in place and with an uncertain but probably small stockpile of ATACMS," he said.