HomeInternational NewsRussian-Ukranian War

Biden’s Missile Approval Sparks Debate Over Ukraine’s Use of Long-Range Weapons

President Biden's approval for Ukraine to strike Russian targets with U.S. missiles sparks debates among European allies about military aid. Learn more about the implications and strategic considerations.

Although the European cruise missiles are manufactured by missile-maker MBDA, the U.S. controls some of their tech, giving it a voice in their use. | Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images

President Joe Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-made missiles against targets inside Russia has triggered significant reactions across Europe, intensifying discussions over the scope of military aid to Kyiv.


European Allies’ Stance on Missile Use

Several European nations have already provided Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles, but policies governing their use vary:

  • United Kingdom: Donated Storm Shadow missiles but awaits U.S. approval for strikes on Russian soil.
  • France: Supplied SCALP missiles and maintains “strategic ambiguity” on their potential use inside Russia.
  • Italy: Donated SCALP missiles with clear restrictions against attacks within Russian territory.
  • Germany: Continues to resist calls to supply Taurus missiles, citing Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s firm stance against escalation.

While European cruise missiles share technology developed by the U.S., Washington’s involvement in targeting data and export controls often limits their operational use.


Strategic Implications

The American ATACMS and European Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles are key tools in Ukraine’s arsenal:

  • Range and Precision: Both systems have ranges exceeding 300 kilometers, enabling strikes deep into enemy territory.
  • Warhead Capabilities: The Taurus missile’s advanced MEPHISTO warhead can destroy heavily fortified structures, offering a tactical advantage against critical Russian infrastructure like the Kerch Strait Bridge.

Despite these advantages, military experts like James Nixey of Chatham House suggest that the U.S. and its allies are deliberately maintaining incremental support to avoid provoking a broader conflict.


Diplomatic Pressure and Public Support

The decision has prompted mixed reactions:

  • EU Support: Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, endorsed the move, arguing that Ukraine should be able to “hit the archers” attacking its territory.
  • German Reluctance: Berlin remains steadfast, with Scholz opposing the delivery of long-range weapons to prevent further escalation.
  • Ukraine’s Plea: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the development, emphasizing the destructive potential of advanced Western missiles.

This ongoing debate underscores the geopolitical complexities of supporting Ukraine while managing the risk of direct confrontation with Russia.


Broader Impact on the War

While Ukraine has its own long-range capabilities, the precision and power of Western missiles could shift dynamics on the battlefield. However, experts caution that this shift may be gradual rather than decisive.

Biden’s decision signals a broader willingness among allies to expand Ukraine’s military options, but as Nixey observed, the “drip feed” approach of incremental hardware provisions remains the prevailing strategy.


Conclusion

Biden’s authorization of missile strikes on Russian targets reflects a careful balancing act between bolstering Ukraine’s defense and mitigating risks of escalation. As European allies reevaluate their own policies, the question of how far the West will go to support Ukraine remains open.

Subscribe to our newsletter

COMMENTS