The US allowed Ukraine to hit ATACMS almost everywhere (VIDEO)

The delivery from the United States and Ukraine’s first use of ATACMS long-range ballistic missiles once morest Russian targets in Crimea has become the subject of heated debate in the Western press, as well as among political and military observers.

Many observers praise the US leadership for this decision and criticize that it was made “too late.” Some experts say that right now there is a chance to change the American strategy for a victory for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokesman believes that the decision was made at the right time, and it corresponds to the situation on the battlefield.

The former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defense of Lithuania, and now his country’s ambassador to Sweden, Linas Linkevičius, notes that finally “following a painful pause, the bag of promises for Ukraine was untied” and it received billions of dollars from the United States, the long-awaited ATACMS, Storm Shadow missiles, as well as additional Patriot installations.

“The most important thing now is that all this continues without stopping until victory,” the Lithuanian diplomat wrote on Twitter.

US Ambassador to Kyiv Bridget Brink said the delivery of ATACMS in March shows that “our commitment to the defense of Ukraine is unwavering.”

The Associated Press reveals the circumstances leading up to Washington’s decision. Citing two US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, the agency reported that the Biden administration had previously warned Russia that if it used long-range ballistic missiles in Ukraine, Washington would provide the Ukrainians with the same capabilities. Then Russia did not heed the warning and used these missiles to strike Ukraine.

Analysts support Washington’s decision, but say that the “erroneous” pattern of arms supplies is repeated once more and once more – Kyiv asks for some kind of weapons, ranging from Javelin systems, tanks and ending with F-16s, Washington waits a long time, and then provides them, but too much too little and too late.

If this had been provided in a shorter time frame, “perhaps Ukraine would have already won the war. It seems reasonable to conclude that these weapons were transferred to Ukraine one drop at a time so that Kyiv did not lose, but also did not defeat Russia due to the consequences of this,” the BBC’s Ukraine correspondent Ewan MacDonald tweeted.

He argues that this strategy is costing Ukraine too much life and destruction. According to MacDonald, this policy was a conscious agreement between the United States and Germany, aimed at preventing Russia from defeat and bringing the matter to negotiations.

“They wanted an exhausted but not yet defeated Ukraine to be forced to the negotiating table with an exhausted but also undefeated Russia,” writes Macdonald, expressing a view common among a number of experts in Ukraine.

British military analyst Phillips O’Brien said there was “evidence that the Biden administration has learned some very important lessons” and “the timing and manner of the decision gives hope for the future.”

There is evidence that the Biden administration has learned some very important lessons.
Phillips O’Brien, British military analyst
Former NATO official and expert at the Finnish Institute of International Relations Edward Hunter Christie believes that the erroneous US position still remains, and the administration is still trying to avoid escalation.

Washington, according to Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser to the US Presidential Administration, continues to insist that ATACMS missiles should not be used to attack targets outside Ukrainian territory. The expert responds to this by saying that, firstly, no one fights like that, and secondly, that Europeans should work to correct the “mistake” of the White House.

Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Christopher Grady told The Associated Press that the decision to supply ATACMS was carefully considered and the weapons were delivered at the “right time.”

He believes that this will help Ukraine disable Russian logistics lines and reduce the concentration of troops behind the front line.

“I think this is the right time, and the boss (Biden) made the decision that this is the right time to provide them based on where the fight is right now,” Grady said. “Any time you introduce a new system, any change on the battlefield, you have to think regarding the escalatory nature of this move.”

As the American television channel CNN explains, in addition to fears of escalation, the Biden administration had other compelling reasons to resist the idea of ​​​​sending long-range missiles to Ukraine. CNN explains that the United States itself was not ready for this – creating powerful missiles takes time and complex components.

As a representative of Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of ATACMS missiles, said in September, production is operating at full capacity, but can only produce regarding 500 missiles per year. Therefore, before giving missiles to Ukraine, America needed to resolve the issue of purchasing new ATACMS missiles and replenish its own military reserves.

The very fact of ATACMS delivery to Kyiv means that the United States trusts the Ukrainians, Elizabeth Braw, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said in an interview with the Russian Voice of America service. “If you provide such a weapon, you need to be sure that the recipient uses it correctly,” the expert says. “Otherwise we would have had a dangerous escalation of the situation.”

Brow believes that, unlike Ukraine, Russia does not enjoy the same level of trust from its allies. “When Ukraine receives a new type of weapon, Russia either brushes it off, ridicules it, or issues ominous warnings to the countries that provided it,” Brough said. “These strategies, it seems to me, are born of desperation, since Russia does not have friends who would help it out of a sense of duty: Russia must either produce weapons itself, or be useful to the countries that support it.”

Why does Kyiv need ATACMS?

ATACMS have long been high on Ukraine’s wish list because of their firepower, allowing Ukrainian troops to strike Russian targets far behind the front line, Newsweek magazine writes.

The new missiles give Ukraine almost twice the range – up to 300 kilometers – compared to the medium-range ATACMS version that Kyiv received from the US last October.

Together with recently transferred batches of British Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles, they enhance Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities.

The target of the first ATACMS strike was the Russian airbase at Dzhankoy, which is a key Russian logistics center in northern Crimea. But, as Newsweek notes, the most desirable target for Kyiv is the Crimean Bridge, connecting the Russian mainland with the eastern part of the Kremlin-annexed peninsula.

Hudson Institute study authors Luke Coffey and Peter Rough say U.S. policymakers must recognize that Ukraine’s shortest path to victory lies through Crimea, and so the U.S. must arm, train and equip Ukrainians accordingly.

Coffey and Rough argue that in addition to ATACMS, Ukraine needs air-launched cruise missiles to win: more French- and British-made SCALP-EG and Storm Shadow missiles, as well as American-designed missiles for Ukrainian F-16s and German-made Taurus.

“Russia’s war once morest Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea, and it will only end when Ukraine regains control over it,” experts working on a victory strategy for Ukraine are convinced.