A Senile Biden Has Got Us One Step Closer to World War III
The US Must Operate the Long Range ATACMS missiles Russia claims
A senile US President, Joe Biden, has authorized (or at least told to authorize) long range missile strikes on Russian territory. His decision has pulled the rug out from German President Olaf Scholz, who has refused to send long range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. But Germany's government has all but collapsed and Scholz's credibility at home has now been damaged even further thanks to Biden. (It could be that Scholz knew Biden was going to authorize ATACMS missiles, which is why he telephoned Putin ahead of Biden's move to release ATACMS. We don't really know what the two leaders may have said to each other in an hour-long phone call that did not require a translator, since Putin speaks German. But it can be supposed that Scholz wanted to get targets in Germany off Russia's list after Biden's announcement.)
Russia has made clear this is a red line and puts NATO directly at war with Russia. The Russians say that ATACMS missiles, fired from HIMARS launching platforms, are operated by NATO technicians, not by Ukrainians.
There is merit in the Russian argument. The fact is that if Ukraine controlled HIMARS launchers with ATACMS they would already have been firing them at Russian targets such as the Kursk nuclear plant, which they previously tried to hit with drones. The good news is the Ukrainians do not control them.
ATACMS missiles won't change the course of the war, nor its outcome. It will however lead to some nasty surprises as the decision has consequences bigger than Ukraine.
Throughout the war, the Russians have not attacked any NATO supply base and the United States and its NATO allies have not attacked Russian territory, although the use of specialized long range drones and attacks on Russian ships in the Black Sea, especially those operating adjacent to Russian territory, have crossed the line.
Russia has many options now as a result of Biden's wrong decision. It can attack US and NATO bases outside of Ukraine, in Poland for example. This would trigger a general European-wide conflict, but the Russians likely hold the upper hand and can devastate Europe, which has more to lose than the Russians.
Russia can also focus its attacks on Ukraine, by destroying Kiev for example. A full out missile and bombing attack on the Ukrainian capital city would cost many lives and destroy swaths of property. Biden's decision and Zelensky's foolish enthusiasm supporting it invites exactly this kind of retaliation.
ATACMS missiles also are in short supply. They form an important part of US defenses elsewhere, particularly in the Asia Pacific region. Taiwan is getting ATACMS, but very slowly, and the US Marines on Okinawa need them to interdict a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The Marines have already set up a radar station on the small island of Yonaguni, and if tension rises indicating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the Marines will move HIMARS to Yonaguni, which is only around 111km (69 miles) from Taiwan.
The US secretly started shipping ATACMS missiles to Ukraine last spring. They were sent as part of a last ditch effort to try and save Ukraine from defeat. With a range of about 190 miles, the missiles can cause significant damage if they are not intercepted by Russian air defenses. Reports say that ATACMS will be used to try and save the Ukrainian invasion of Kursk, which is Russian territory. Ukraine has put a large number of its best fighting brigades in Kursk, trying to hold onto that territory. It is viewed as a "bargaining chip" in an anticipated future negotiation with Russia. But in recent weeks the Russians have been pushing the Ukrainians back in Kursk and bombing their rear assembly areas, causing a painfully high number of casualties. Russia says that Ukraine has already lost 32,000 soldiers (dead or wounded) in the Kursk invasion, and the numbers continue to increase. Russia has also lost many troops, but we don't know the actual number. However, the fight is asymmetrical because Ukraine no longer has the manpower to sustain the Kursk operation and fight elsewhere along the long line of contract with the Russian army.
The other long range weapons used in the war by Ukraine and NATO are cruise missiles supplied by the UK and France. The British and French versions are quite similar. Britain's missile is named Storm Shadow. The French version is called Scalp. The well-regarded French newspaper, Figaro, reported that the British and French had authorized the use of these missiles for deep strikes into Russia, but in a subsequent edition of the same story deleted the sentence saying France and Britain gave such an authorization. Both Storm Shadow and Scalp are already in Ukraine, but they must be pre-targeted and operated by NATO personnel. It seems neither the French nor the British are anxious to expand their conflict with Russia (despite their rhetoric). However, the UK Standard, quoting the UK Foreign Minister, gave a highly qualified endorsement to the use of Storm Shadow, appearing to suggest it was acceptable to use them in the Kursk region of Russia.
Meanwhile, and for the record, the British have no more Storm Shadow missiles it can ship to Ukraine. It is likely the French stockpile also is depleted. Meanwhile the Germans have again said there will be no Taurus missiles for Ukraine.
How this plays out now depends on what Russia decides to do.
I repeat my comment posted on Simplicus earlier, but I gnerally agree. A man who is incapable of running for POTUS appears to have taken the decision to cross one of the few red lines the Russians have actually put down. My guess is that a response will come but not in the way that NATO expects.
"So I have read this, and all the comments, and a lot over on MoA, and those on ZH, and half a dozen articles in the MSM. Apart from the usual hawks, no one seems to think that long range strikes on Russia using NATO ISR etc is a good idea. It is universally recognised as an escalation, no one thinks it will change anything much, and all agree that resources are lacking.
The MSM are using the Norks as an excuse (yet to see any evidence here but a lot of hot air) and talk about long range strikes in Kursk - eh??? That sounds short range to me if you can read a map. There is little coverage on how it is that a senile old man in the shape of Biden appears able to take a decision of this magnitude just before the Trump team takes over with the express aim of ending the fighting.
My take is that a faction within DC has pushed this, possibly Blinken and his crew, and the hope is that it will scupper Trump somehow. That might help explain why Starmer and Scholtz (another has been soon to go) are keen to join in this exercise. I hope the Pentagon faction slow walk this thing.
Frankly though, I am a little perplexed. I simply cannot see any advantage accruing to the West that is commensurate with the risks being run. Do they honestly think that Russia will be coerced to the peace table? Or maybe they simply don't want peace talks at all? However I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains why this decision has been taken and why now?"
It would seem that the best way to deescalate this is for Trump to announce his disapproval of this and to state clearly that any American lives lost due to a Russian retaliation will be on the democrats.