Biden is likely to give in. Second look | The West continues to untie weapons for their own benefit

As the Russian-Ukrainian conflict continues and the battlefield situation changes, the red line drawn by the West on aiding Ukraine with weapons is constantly being crossed. With the Ukrainian army caught in a dilemma on both the Kursk and Donbas fronts, the United States and the West have spread rumors that they intend to continue to lift the ban on long-range weapons to strike Russian targets deep inside. Can this move reverse the current unfavorable situation, or is it just a stupid move that hurts the enemy and makes the enemy happy? Isn't this just adding fuel to the fire for the already deadlocked conflict?

Since the Ukrainian army unexpectedly launched a cross-border ground offensive in Kursk, a Russian border area, in August, Ukrainian President Zelensky has not achieved the results he wanted. On the contrary, the Russian army has launched a fierce counterattack. The Ukrainian army's offensive means are stretched even more when both sides are "open cards". After the plan to force the Russian army to split up in Kharkiv failed, the Ukrainian army is facing an embarrassing dilemma in Kursk. Retreating means that past efforts are just a waste of effort, and there is no better way to advance. Against this background, Ukraine's call for the West to lift the ban on long-range weapons to strike Russia in depth has intensified. At the same time, the United States and the West have also been leaking hints that their positions have begun to loosen, the red line has been stepped on, and the unbundling of weapons is imminent. Observers believe that Zelensky's request to unlock long-range weapons is not unrelated to the Ukrainian army's predicament in Kursk.

Wang Siyu, assistant researcher at the Shanghai Institute of Global Governance and Regional Countries, Shanghai International Studies University, said that judging from the current battle situation and the deployment of forces on both sides, Ukraine's ability to cross the border to attack Russia's military airports, missile launch sites and logistics hubs around Ukraine is still relatively limited. Although the United States has provided intelligence support to Ukraine, including many large military facilities, air defense missile sites, logistics centers and some national defense and military assets in Russia, Ukraine has no other more efficient means of destruction except using large-scale drone attacks. Although the "Storm Shadow" air-based cruise missiles provided by the West to Ukraine and the Army Tactical Missile System provided by the United States have a projection range of about 160-200 kilometers, if the Ukrainian army uses them properly, they can pose a threat to the Russian military's tactical logistics and even strategic logistics capabilities, especially to Russian military targets such as Ligov and Ryersk. However, to fundamentally solve the problem of Russia's air strikes on Ukraine, it is necessary to use long-range weapons to directly attack Russia's missile launch platforms, including air force bases. It is worth noting that many Russian air force bases are used to store strategic bombers. These aircraft are used for nuclear deterrence. If Western weapons are used to directly attack Russia's strategic nuclear deterrence assets, there will definitely be some risks. This is also the root cause of the problem why the United States has been reluctant to give in.

The reason why some Western countries, represented by the UK, have responded actively and taken frequent actions is naturally due to political considerations. According to British media reports, the UK has decided to allow Ukraine to use "Storm Shadow" cruise missiles against targets in Russia. Previously, the UK drew a red line for the weapons that arrived, requiring Kiev to only launch them at targets in Ukraine. Many British politicians, including former defense ministers and former prime ministers, have been constantly encouraging Prime Minister Starmer not to consider the support of the United States because "this is the way for the UK to demonstrate its so-called 'global leadership' in supporting Ukraine."

Although Ukraine has repeatedly urged the lifting of the ban on long-range weapons, Western countries led by the United States currently have different attitudes and opinions. The British media seems to have made it clear, but the official has not yet made a clear statement. Starmer did not remain silent after meeting with Biden and did not make any decision. The call of Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski was met with the "Tai Chi" of US Secretary of State Blinken. NATO's statement is more intriguing. NATO Military Committee Chairman Powell said that it is reasonable to lift the ban, but "the decision needs to be made by each country itself." Powell said that from a political point of view, countries that provide weapons to Ukraine also have the right to set certain limits on the use of weapons, because these countries are responsible for supplying weapons, and each country will have its own views on this. Germany's attitude is obviously more conservative. Chancellor Scholz recently explicitly rejected this request. He said that in order to prevent the further escalation of the situation between Russia and Ukraine, Germany will not provide Ukraine with long-range weapons to attack the Russian hinterland in the future. He refused to provide Ukraine with "Taurus" cruise missiles. Scholz also emphasized that even if other countries make different decisions, he will stick to his position. The US media used European officials to express the possibility that the US would relax. Biden was vague when facing reporters' questions, saying that "the problem is being solved now." As for what specific problem to solve and how to solve it, it is left for you to think about. However, it is not difficult to read some deep meaning from the words of US Secretary of Defense Austin. He recently poured cold water on Zelensky and bluntly said that even if Ukraine uses weapons provided by the United States to carry out long-range strikes on Russia, it will not turn the tide of the war. The signal sent by this statement is indeed worth considering by those active supporters in the West.

Wang Siyu believes that the United States' reluctance to let go is naturally related to Biden's considerations. Ensuring effective control and basic mutual trust between the United States and Russia on nuclear safety issues is certainly one of Biden's achievements. He could have left this risk to the next president, but now he may not be able to withstand the pressure. In the United States, the bipartisan Ukrainian caucuses in both the Senate and the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill are exerting pressure. The seats they occupy in both houses cannot be underestimated, which puts a lot of pressure on Biden. Abroad, the vast majority of NATO's northern and eastern countries have asked the United States to lift restrictions as soon as possible, because American suppliers provide parts and technology to European military contractors. For example, the "Storm Shadow" cruise missile uses American parts, which means that the decision on whether Western long-range weapons can be used on Russian territory ultimately falls on the United States. Judging from the current situation, Biden is likely to let go under pressure.