Thread by @ThreshedThought

The US has decided to allow Ukraine to use longer-range missiles in Russia.

This brings to a close a pretty feckless period of US policy towards Ukraine.

A 🧵

It’s quite hard to even work out what the White House is trying to do these days, apart from vainly responding to events.

Let’s dig into it.

This permissions - that Ukraine be allowed to use the longer range US supplied ATACAMS missiles (range 300km) inside Russia - is all of a piece with a series of decisions stretching right back to 2014.

Essentially the conversation goes like this:

“Shall we give Ukraine X weapons system or capability as it will give them an advantage against Russia”

“We can’t do that as it will be escalatory, and Russia is scary, and we don’t want to provoke them”

… long period of time passes …

“OK. Let’s give them the weapons system”

(And months and months of Ukrainian military advantage is given away, allowing Russia to further stabilise and build up its forces.)

This dynamic has occurred over almost every weapons delivery to Ukraine:

- Javelin anti-armour missiles
- Artillery
- Longer range artillery
- Fighter jets
- etc.

With every single one the US has said that they didn’t want to give that particular weapons system because it would be escalatory and would provoke Russia.

I don’t know how many times it needs to be said but …

YOU CANNOT ESCALATE A GENOCIDAL INVASION OF A NEIGHBOURING COUNTRY WHERE THEY ARE KIDNAPPING CHILDREN AND TAKING THEM BACK TO RUSSIA

And just before all the bots jump into my timeline blathering on about Russia using nuclear weapons … they won’t … because the use of nuclear weapons still works under the same rules of mutually assured destruction.

Russia uses them …. so does the US, the UK, and France.

So at each stage of this conflict we have voluntarily ceded military advantage to Russia, by delaying capability uplifts to Ukraine.

It is absolutely criminal.

And taken together, all of these decisions could have made a difference …

There was a stage in 2022 when Russia was on its knees and the conflict could have gone another way …

… and the West allowed Russia breathing space.

The US (& one assumes the UK & France will now follow suit with their Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles) will allow Ukraine to use ATACAMS to defend their Kursk salient.

Black - internationally recognised borders
Blue - Ukrainian held territory in Russia
Red dashes - range of ATACAMS.

I mean it’s helpful … but it is not going to change the price of fish.

In a tactical sense, what it means is that Ukraine can hit Russia assets that are currently outside of it’s range (but it is already by definition firing artillery into Russia from Russian territory, so really all this does it lengthen the range a bit.

It brings into range some of the concentrations of North Korean soldiers that are trying to push the Ukrainians out of Russia.

And I suppose that it signals that the US (under Biden, and I’ll come back to this point) is willing to support Ukraine in holding Russian territory one assumes as an eventual bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia.

A trade for some Ukrainian territory?

But this is where it all falls apart.

Trump, who will be in power in a couple of months, has already signalled that he wants to come to a deal, and that he wants both sides to avoid escalating.

Trump will see this as escalatory.

And he is also a man who has a history of reversing the decisions of his opponents, just because they are his opponents.

If Trump were to take away this permission from Ukraine when he gets into power, it would send precisely the wrong signals

In short … it is too little, too late, too confused, and possibly counterproductive.

I’ve never seen anything like it.

Imagine if a couple of years ago the US had granted ATACAMS missiles to Ukraine (first time, not after dithering), and had then granted Ukraine permission to use them at full range inside Russia.

Crimea would have been in range for one, including the Kerch Bridge.

Imagine if we’d given them javelins, and artillery, and tanks, and fighter planes…..

For the truth is that the West is already in a war with Russia …

… and the Ukrainians are currently fighting it for us and bearing the casualties …

… and the longer we leave giving them what they need to win …

… the more likely that we are going to be fighting ourselves …

… and taking those casualties ourselves.

There is a simple lesson in geopolitics …

… the longer you leave deterrence, the more expensive it gets …

… it seems that this is a lesson that we simply cannot learn.

Another way of saying the same thing is CLOUT not DRIBBLE.

The UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer is on his way to the G20 in Brazil, and he says his main focus is getting Ukraine the support they need.

If Ukraine loses, we all lose.

Now is the time.

(Actually it was years ago, but now it really is the time).

The UK has to use this moment to galvanise European allies to give Ukraine whatever it needs to defeat Russia … because otherwise we will be fighting Russia.

And over the next couple of months the UK needs to use its strategic defence review to refocus our military SOLELY on deterring Russia, and if necessary defeating them with allies.

ENDS