Firing American missiles at Russia won’t change Ukraine’s fortunes

THE NAMEATACMSHIMARSGPSATACMSATACMSATACMSATACMSATACMSATACMSATACMSSCALPATACMS of the weapon, designed in the late 1980s, was both an acronym—Army Tactical Missile System ()—and, when said aloud, an exhortation—“attack ’ems”. But Ukraine could not, in fact, attack ’em—at least not inside Russia, not until November 17th, when American news outlets reported that Joe Biden, America’s president, had changed course and given Ukraine permission to use the advanced long-range missiles on Russian soil. The decision will not dramatically change Ukraine’s flagging fortunes on the front lines, though it will boost morale and strengthen the country’s hand ahead of negotiations pursued by Donald Trump after January 20th. A tumultuous two months lies ahead first.America first gave Ukraine rocket launchers in the summer of 2022, though equipped only with shorter-ranged -guided rockets. In late 2023, after over a year of debate, it relented and provided the 300km-range . Ukraine used the weapons to devastating effect in Russian-occupied territory, including Crimea—it destroyed nine helicopters in two strikes that October—but it was denied permission to fire them over the border into Russia against the airfields, ammunition depots and command posts that were being used to strike it.Mr Biden imposed that restraint for three reasons. One was the Pentagon’s argument that it had limited stocks of and that these were needed for war plans in various parts of the world, notably against North Korea. The second was that their military utility would, supposedly, be limited. In September the Pentagon said that 90% of Russian jets launching glide bombs at Ukrainian positions had already moved east out of range of . The third was the risk of escalation. Ukraine has frequently used its own drones and missiles to strike inside Russia—one attack at Toropets in September took out three to four months’ worth of ammunition—but strikes typically require American assistance with intelligence and targeting. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, has said that the use of Western missiles in Russia would constitute “direct involvement” in the war.Ukraine and its proponents bat these arguments away. There are more than enough —more than 1,000 on some estimates—in America’s inventory, they argue, and they are being gradually replaced with newer and longer-ranged missiles. Russian jets may be out of range, but other targets—depots, command posts, logistics hubs and the like—abound. The main targets would be Russian helicopters and attack aircraft providing close-air-support to troops, notes Tatarigami, a pseudonymous former Ukrainian officer who tracks the war. Escalation concerns are also overdone, they argue. After all, Mr Putin considers Crimea to be an inalienable part of Russia and yet did nothing in response to strikes there. Likewise, he failed to take any dramatic retaliatory steps in response to the West’s steady intensification of arms supply from small arms to missiles to tanks to fighter jets.Mr Biden’s decision now leaves three significant questions. One is the extent of his reversal. Reports have suggested that Ukraine, at least initially, will only be permitted to use in Kursk province, where Ukraine has seized territory that Russia is now battling to reclaim. That makes political sense if the purpose is to send a message to North Korea, which is assisting Russia in that effort. Western officials are concerned that the country’s initial deployment might turn into a steady pipeline. They are keen to nip that in the bud. But it makes little military sense if the aim is to inflict maximum damage on Russia’s war machine prior to January 20th, when Mr Trump takes over. Many of the juiciest Russian targets are elsewhere.The second question is whether Britain and France will now follow suit and allow Ukraine to use their own advanced cruise missiles—known as Storm Shadow and respectively—inside Russia. These missiles, like , require considerable Western involvement for effective targeting. British officials are thought to have been reluctant to authorise their use inside Russia without America leading the way and providing cover. They are now likely to relent. And France in that case would surely do the same.The decision might also put pressure on Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, to reconsider his own refusal to provide Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. He is likely to come under growing attack on the issue from Friedrich Merz, head of the opposition centre-right Christian Democrats. But Mr Scholz publicly doubled down on his position a week ago in the Bundestag, during an election campaign in which has portrayed himself as the “prudent” choice in contrast to the more hawkish Mr Merz.The third and most consequential issue is how Mr Putin will choose to respond. America was throwing “oil to the fire”, said a spokesman for the Kremlin. “If such a decision has been taken, it means a whole new spiral of tension.” Concerns over the use of nuclear weapons are overblown, not least because there is little prospect of a Russian collapse on the front lines in the short term. But Russia has been hinting that it might expand its aid to the Houthi rebel group in Yemen, which has been firing missiles at shipping in the Red Sea. Russia is alleged to have provided satellite-derived targeting data to the Houthis via Iranian officers. It has also considered supplying more advanced missiles to the group—a risk that Western officials describe as “horizontal escalation”, ie, beyond Ukraine. There are also concerns that Russian spies might intensify their campaign of sabotage, subversion and attempted assassination inside Europe, which has included the placement of explosive devices on airliners.Mr Biden may be hoping that Mr Putin will not respond aggressively in order to keep open the prospect of cutting a deal with Mr Trump next year. The president-elect reportedly told Mr Putin on a phone call that he should not escalate the war. If that is true—the Kremlin denies that the phone call took place—then both Mr Biden and Mr Trump will have had their answer in the skies above Ukraine in the early hours of November 17th: the largest air attacks since last year, crippling Ukraine’s power grid and killing a reported 18 people.