Limiting range of weapons US supplies to Ukraine

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

It is no secret that the US wants to support Ukraine up to the limit where the weapons supplied will be deemed to have enabled Ukraine to attack the Russian homeland. Despite that, there have been numerous cases where Ukraine has done just that (and incurred retaliation out of proportion with their incursions).

Currently, Ukraine is being attacked by missiles fired from ships in the Black Sea as well as drones from Russia-proper utilizing their 1,500km+ range.

If not making it legitimate for Ukraine to, for instance, target the facilities supplying electricity to Moscow, it should at least be kosher to supply weapons which can take out the ships firing missiles into Ukraine as they are at-sea rather than docked in Russian ports.

My guess as to why this has not taken place is two-fold:

Russia could pretty easily take out every military and merchant marine ship Ukraine has afloat in the Black Sea.

If, say the US, supplied the weapons the weapons used, Russia would feel obligated to retaliate. My guess this would be through Russian cyberattacks. These have been surprisingly missing during the conflict, other than “love taps” which show the ability to punch, but don’t deliver significant blows.

From a political standpoint in the US, while it is important to show the maximum “reasonable” support for Ukraine, it is also a reality that the US is trying to calibrate the support to avoid getting us involved in direct exchanges of blows with Russia. The same logic can be applied across the rest of NATO/EU/UK as well, not to mention why Israel does not supply “Iron Dome” anti-missile technology.

Russia is still far away from waging “total war” against Ukraine and she has been careful to avoid direct military conflict against a Western Europe which is satisfied to let Ukraine wear down Russian military capability without being directly involved. Western Europe is being asked to undergo significantly more financial and political hardship than the US in this effort and recent Italian electoral results indicate that the stress can possibly have long-term political consequences.

Jeff

5 Likes
2

Jeff,

There are three major factors.

Ukraine can over play her hand and the Russians would get on a war footing that Ukraine can not win.

Russia being attacked this becomes a nuclear war. Or just as bad other countries like Estonia are dragged in even if this does not go nuclear. We though have opened the door giving Ukraine the longer range weapons.

These are all Slavs. While we see a sea of blood do not be fooled. If we go about this head on to win at the end of the day if it is the US against the Slavs…we lose. Ukrainians can side even after this with the Russians. I fight with my brother till my cousin comes along.

We need to keep our noses clean or they will be more than badly bloodied.

3

The US have supplied Ukraine with HIMARS with GMLRS (90km range) ammunition, with the expressed restriction that these may not be used to fire on targets on Russian soil. Frequent “Russian smoking accidents” i Belgorod are caused by other means.

HIMARS is game changer for Ukraine, enabling them to strike logistics and high value targets deep behind the front line - out of counter artillery range. What Ukraine does not have (as far we know) however, is the ATACMS ammunition. With its 300km range, it would enable Ukraine to reach almost every inch of occupied territory, effectively crippling Russia’s ability to launch attacks from Ukrainian soil.

One might wonder where the hiccup is. By the looks of it, letting things keep dragging on feels like an intentional strategy aimed at Russia.

2 Likes
4

Or halfway to Moscow from Northern Ukraine. Of course, the Iranian drones have the range to reach there and back from northern Ukraine. I figure Ukraine knows how much they can poke the bear before it gets real angry.

Jeff

2 Likes