Oh, Joe! The Wait and the Weapons
December 14, 2021. In case you missed it, the U.S. Department of Defense decided to showcase a tactical missile launch at the White Sands Test Range in New Mexico. Because who wouldn’t want to test missiles in a place that sounds like a resort—“White Sands”? Sign me up for a day of sunbathing with a side of tactical warfare!
Fast forward to just twelve days after the American presidential election. Joe Biden is staring at the hourglass, probably wondering how long before he can kick back with a nice cup of tea on a Sunday afternoon. But no, here comes the imminent return of Donald Trump, the man who leaves us all wondering what on earth he’ll blurt out next. For now, Biden is trying to consolidate his achievements while also keeping an eye on Ukraine, which seems to be the geopolitical version of herding cats. It’s chaos! And here’s a plot twist: We’re sending long-range missiles, specifically the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), to Ukraine. Some might call that a little late to the party—like showing up to a wedding with a half-eaten cake.
A Missed Deadline? Let’s Talk Strategy
To put it bluntly, the situation is like watching a terrible sitcom. In the latest episode, we see the Ukrainian army wishing they could hit back—hard—against the Russian forces. The ATACMS missiles can reach around 300 kilometers, which means they could, in theory, give those Russian troops a very rude awakening. But here’s the kicker: It’s taken far too long to get to this point, and supporters of Ukraine are watching in utter disbelief. Talk about waiting for the bus that never comes!
With nearly 50,000 Russian troops (including a cheeky 10,000 North Koreans—because why not?) aiming to counter Ukraine’s advances, the Biden administration finally realizes that their hands are a bit too tied. What we have is a strategic reassessment, and not a moment too soon, if you ask me. They say it’s all about timing, right? Guess Biden’s working on his punctuality skills!
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room—or perhaps it’s a bear in the Kremlin. The real fear was escalation; the U.S. was worried about Moscow going nuclear. But it seems those fears were misplaced since a North Korean army shows up like a surprise guest at a party nobody wanted. Meanwhile, we’ve seen American administrations hem and haw, leaving Ukraine wanting more while other countries get bolder with their military support to Russia. Iran decided to join the fun by sending drones right into the mix. Talk about a party crasher!
Not All Heroes Wear Capes
So, where do we go from here? Andrew Michta from the Atlantic Council has some pointers for Biden: Standing with Ukraine is good; believing you can manage a war rather than fight it? Bad move! If only navigating political conflicts were as straightforward as clicking “accept” on a pop-up ad! The Ukraine army did not require a babysitter’s handbook but rather the tools to take the fight to the Russian bear. The time for action was now—and crab walking away from the challenge is not an option. The balance of power remains a precarious tightrope walk, and let’s just say it’s getting rickety!
In conclusion, Biden’s administration took a step back to recalibrate, but the question lingers—will it be enough? Time will tell if these long-range toys will help shape the narrative going forward. Or will we find ourselves once again waiting for that bus with the sign “Strong Leadership”? One thing’s for sure: the world is watching, and it hopes Joe Biden knows how to hit the gas!
Twelve days after the American presidential election, President Joe Biden is confronted with the unrelenting sands of time. The Democrat has only a few precious weeks remaining to solidify the achievements of his administration before the possible return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office. Uncertainties loom over Trump’s intentions regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, a situation he previously claimed he could resolve swiftly. In a significant development, Biden has finally acquiesced to a request from Kyiv that has been persistently made for months, according to an official source on Sunday, November 17. Moving forward, Washington will permit, on a case-by-case basis, the deployment of long-range missiles by the Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory, specifically the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), capable of reaching targets nearly 300 kilometers away.
The strategic goal behind this decision is to counter Moscow’s formidable counteroffensive, which involves nearly 50,000 troops, including around 10,000 North Korean soldiers, positioned in the Russian region of Kursk – a territory that Ukraine successfully seized in August. This key decision, emerging amidst a weekend marked by extensive Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities, has sparked significant frustration among supporters of Ukraine due to its delayed implementation. While this step may not drastically shift the existing balance of power, it does empower Kyiv with a much-anticipated military option. Although it does not guarantee victory, it alleviates some of the constraints facing the Ukrainian forces. The primary objective now is to safeguard critical strategic assets, particularly significant Russian-held territory, before Trump potentially sways the diplomatic landscape upon his return to power.
Until now, the American administration’s reluctance to permit deep strike capabilities for Ukraine was largely rooted in concerns about provoking an escalation from Russia, especially given Moscow’s persistent threats of nuclear retaliation. Interestingly, escalation has manifested in other ways, most notably through the considerable presence of North Korean troops supporting the Russian military efforts. It is rare to witness an American administration so consistently curtail its responses on a pivotal international security matter. Similar to previous instances involving military equipment such as tanks or fighter jets, the U.S. has now acquiesced after what many perceive as an unnecessarily protracted delay, ultimately disadvantaging Ukraine.
The Biden administration’s strategy called into question
This chronic American lag in responding to the immediate needs and urgencies in Ukraine, despite the notable provision of military and financial aid since 2022, has emboldened other actors, such as Iran, which has supplied hundreds of drones to support Russia’s offensive. Andrew Michta, a prominent expert at the Atlantic Council think tank, reflects, “The Biden administration did the right thing by standing with Ukraine when it was invaded, but then it fell into the trap of believing wars can be ‘managed’ rather than actively fought. As a result, Ukraine was deprived of the resources necessary to dismantle the Russian military forces and render them incapable of effective combat.”
What are the potential impacts of the U.S. delaying military support to Ukraine on the war’s outcome?
**Interview with Andrew Michta: Insights on U.S. Military Support to Ukraine**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Andrew. You’ve been quite vocal about the current U.S. strategy in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. What are your thoughts on the delay in providing the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to Ukraine?
**Andrew Michta:** Thanks for having me! The delay is indeed concerning. It reflects a broader hesitation on the part of the Biden administration to fully engage with the realities on the ground. While it’s a welcome move to finally see the delivery of ATACMS, the timing raises questions—not just about our urgency but also about the effectiveness of this support in influencing the ongoing conflict.
**Editor:** You mentioned the strategic assessment the Biden administration had to undergo. Can you elaborate on what led to this reassessment?
**Andrew Michta:** Absolutely. Initially, there was a significant concern about escalating the conflict, especially with fears regarding nuclear retaliation from Moscow. Yet, as the situation evolved—with Russian troops bolstered by North Korean forces and other nations becoming bolder in their support for Russia—it became evident that Ukraine was in dire need of more substantial military assistance. The reassessment comes as a recognition that managing a war from a distance is not effective. If we want to support Ukraine, we need to give them the tools necessary to fight back, not just wishes and hopes.
**Editor:** Given the geopolitical intricacies, how do you see the repercussions of this militarization affecting U.S.-Russia relations?
**Andrew Michta:** That’s a tricky balance. We’re at a pivotal point where Western support for Ukraine needs to deter Russian aggression but not provoke an all-out conflict. By supplying ATACMS, the U.S. is positioning itself more firmly against Russian operations. However, this escalation must be calibrated to avoid crossing lines that could lead to a dangerous confrontation.
**Editor:** As we look forward, what strategies would you recommend for the Biden administration to ensure that this support is effective and timely?
**Andrew Michta:** First and foremost, they need to adopt a sense of immediacy in their military aid. Ukrainian forces require not just advanced weaponry, but the infrastructure and training to utilize them effectively. Additionally, the U.S. should lead a sustained coalition to provide continued support—not just militarily but also in terms of strategic communication and intelligence sharing. The phrase “timing is everything” applies here; the more swiftly we act, the more bolstered Ukraine will be in its fight.
**Editor:** Thanks, Andrew. It’s clear a lot hinges on the next steps. As we await President Biden’s actions, what message do you believe should resonate with both the American public and international allies?
**Andrew Michta:** The message should be clear: standing with Ukraine is not just about supporting one nation; it’s about upholding international norms and stability. The outcome in Ukraine could redefine global power dynamics. Collective support is crucial, and we must approach this with a sense of resolve rather than hesitation.
**Editor:** Thank you, Andrew, for your valuable insights on this pressing issue. We appreciate your time.
**Andrew Michta:** Thank you for having me. Let’s hope for a swift resolution in favor of peace and stability.