The Biden Administration’s "Just Enough" Strategy: A Critical Analysis of U.S. and NATO Restrictions on Ukrainian Military Operations
The U.S. has finally authorized Kyiv to conduct cross-border strikes on Russian forces but with stringent limitations on when, where, and with which American-made weapons these strikes can be carried out. This move by the Biden Administration, while a positive step, represents a continuation of a reactive strategy that allows Russia to maintain the initiative on the battlefield.
The specifics matter significantly. Official statements outline that Ukraine is permitted to conduct "limited strikes inside Russia with American-made weapons ... for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region ... against Russian forces that are attacking or preparing to attack them." However, this approval notably excludes the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a critical asset Ukraine needs to protect Kharkiv.
A U.S. official emphasized, "Our policy with respect to prohibiting the use of ATACMS or long-range strikes inside Russia has not changed." By preemptively removing the ATACMS from consideration, the U.S. has inadvertently given Russia the opportunity to position its forces beyond the range of conventional Ukrainian artillery.
Belgium has mirrored this restrictive stance regarding the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. Prime Minister Alexander De Croo stipulated that Belgian military aid, including the F-16s, can only be used on Ukrainian territory. This decision seems to echo Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warnings to smaller nations.
The question arises: why provide advanced military platforms if Ukraine is not permitted to use them fully against the invading Russian forces? Belgium, of all countries, should recognize the severity of this threat, given its history as a battleground in two world wars. Washington and Brussels must remember that this is a war requiring winning strategies, and current NATO-imposed restrictions risk leading Ukraine down a path to defeat.
As Carl von Clausewitz described in his seminal work "On War," war is "a continuation of politics by other means" and "nothing but a duel on a larger scale." It is a contest where each side seeks to compel the other to submit to its will. While Moscow understands this, NATO does not seem to fully grasp it.
Ukraine is compelled to fight under conditions set by Russia, conditions that the U.S. and NATO astonishingly enforce. This de facto sanctuary for Russia within its borders puts Ukraine at a disadvantage. The attack on a Kharkiv hardware store on May 25, which killed Ukrainian civilians, starkly illustrates the failure of the current defensive strategy of the U.S. and NATO.
Ukraine can intercept some incoming missiles and drones, but the sheer volume of Russian attacks means some always get through, causing civilian casualties. The effective solution is interdiction: destroying the weapon systems, radars, guidance systems, crews, and storage facilities within Russia. Despite being part of the solution, air defense systems alone have not stopped the carnage. The other crucial component is the use of ATACMS, which Russia fears.
The Biden Administration's refusal to authorize ATACMS strikes inside Russia grants the Kremlin a strategic advantage. The initial deployment of HIMARS last year demonstrated their devastating impact on Russian forces. Allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS could have a similar effect.
Instead of being proactive, Ukraine is forced to wait for Russian attacks or incursions. The restrictions placed on U.S. weapons use within Russia mean that Kyiv remains vulnerable as Moscow adjusts to these limitations. In contrast, U.S. forces in the Middle East operate with fewer constraints, conducting preemptive self-defense strikes against imminent threats. Ukraine is denied the same flexibility.
Some NATO countries are beginning to shift their stance. Finland, Canada, and Poland now authorize Ukraine to use their weapons to strike targets within Russia, joining a growing list of nations supporting such actions. This has provoked warnings from Putin about "serious consequences" for Western countries aiding Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory.
Putin's repeated warnings about escalation seem to intimidate U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who fears provoking Russia. However, it is Putin who continues to escalate the conflict. Ukraine defending its territory with Western-provided weapons against Russian offensives is a response, not an escalation.
Interdiction should be the watchword for Washington and Brussels. According to the U.S. Army Field Manual, interdiction involves actions to disrupt or destroy enemy capabilities before they can be used effectively. Yet, NATO’s fear of escalation has led to a paralysis that prevents proactive interdiction.
Retired Air Force General and former NATO Commander Philip Breedlove noted in a New York Post Op-Ed that the Biden Administration’s restrictions signal to Putin that he retains the upper hand. The current U.S. strategy is not designed to enable Ukraine to win but to weaken Russia just enough, a strategy that prolongs the conflict and strengthens Russia's resolve.
To change this, Biden needs to relieve Jake Sullivan of his duties and authorize the use of ATACMS by Ukrainian forces. This could create strategic paralysis in Moscow and set Ukraine on a path to victory, including the reclamation of the Crimean Peninsula. It’s time for a shift towards a winning strategy that enables Ukraine to decisively defeat Russian aggression.
Comments
Post a Comment