The potential for Ukraine to face defeat in the war this winter has prompted Washington and London to reevaluate the deployment of Western-supplied long-range missiles by Kyiv; however, the United States continues to harbor concerns regarding the possibility of escalation.
As the U.S. considers easing restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western-supplied long-range missiles, potentially allowing strikes on airfields and missile sites deeper within Russia, tensions are high. While Washington hasn't fully greenlighted the use of U.S. long-range missiles for such targets, it may remove restrictions on British Storm Shadow missiles, which incorporate U.S. technology.
Kurt Volker, a former U.S. envoy to NATO, expressed frustration, calling for a stronger stance from the Biden administration. "Russia is attacking Ukraine from bases across its territory," Volker told POLITICO. "There should be no safe haven for those strikes. I doubt Biden will allow U.S. missiles to hit Russian airfields, but the British may move ahead without U.S. opposition. Even that might not be enough."
If these negotiations don't lead to a more robust response, Ukraine’s energy officials are particularly worried. The upcoming winter could be a critical turning point in Russia's energy warfare, with Russian forces refining their airstrike strategies after previous failures to collapse Ukraine's energy infrastructure. The recent supply of Iran’s Fath-360 short-range ballistic missiles to Russia could further enable these efforts.
Ukrainian experts fear Russia will use the Fath-360, with its 120-kilometer range, to complement glide bombs aimed at logistics hubs and ammunition depots. This tactic could free up Russia’s longer-range missiles for strikes on Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, particularly its energy grid.
Key substations powering Ukraine’s nuclear plants in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi, and Yuzhnoukrainsk are now in Russia’s crosshairs. Taking out these substations could force a rapid shutdown of reactors, potentially leading to a nuclear disaster. Mykhailo Gonchar, an energy expert, warned that this is precisely Russia's goal.
Currently, Ukraine generates 55% of its energy from three operational nuclear plants. The Zaporizhzhia plant, Europe’s largest, was seized by Russia in 2022 and remains mostly offline. Russian strikes have already destroyed half of Ukraine’s electrical generation capacity, including 80% of thermal power from coal and gas plants and one-third of its hydroelectric output. Last year, Russia's strategy targeted energy distribution, but Ukrainian resilience and quick repairs thwarted their efforts.
However, a successful strike on Ukraine's nuclear plants could cripple the country’s energy system, severely damaging its war capabilities and weakening its position in potential peace talks. This looming threat has pushed the Biden administration to reconsider restrictions on U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles. A major Russian airstrike on August 26 that targeted power substations near Ukraine’s nuclear plants with 109 drones and 127 missiles was a wake-up call, signaling a shift in Russia's strategy.
“If we can’t strike deep inside Russia and hit their airfields, we’re in serious trouble this winter,” Gonchar grimly remarked. Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, former CEO of Ukraine’s power grid operator Ukrenegro, echoed this, stating that Ukraine's energy survival hinges on three factors: the weather, Russian missile strikes, and Ukraine’s ability to hit Russian airfields.
Ukrainian officials hope that the Biden administration will prioritize preventing a collapse of Ukraine's energy grid over concerns about escalation. They argue that Russia’s threats of retaliation have consistently shaped Western policy, leading to overly cautious decisions about what arms to provide Ukraine and how they can be used.
Russian President Vladimir Putin escalated his rhetoric last week, warning that allowing Ukraine to use Western missiles to strike inside Russia would drag NATO into direct conflict and change the nature of the war. Other senior Russian officials followed suit, with Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin cautioning that such actions could lead to a direct clash between nuclear powers.
Despite these threats, Ukrainian officials dismiss them as empty. They point out that every time new Western weapons systems have been delivered or used in Russian territory or occupied Crimea and Donbas, the threats have not materialized. Western officials, however, remain cautious, knowing that any miscalculation could have catastrophic consequences. CIA Director William Burns pointed to Russia's nuclear threats in 2022 as a case where such bluster was not followed by action but stressed that the risk of escalation should not be underestimated.
While Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have downplayed Putin's threats, the U.S. administration is caught between concerns over Moscow’s reaction if Ukraine strikes Russian airfields with Western missiles and fears of Ukraine's energy system collapsing. Critics of Biden’s approach argue that he's being overly cautious. Congressman Donald Bacon, a former U.S. Air Force general, voiced disappointment over signs that Biden may only allow British Storm Shadows to target Russian airfields while holding back U.S. ATACMS.
“Ukraine should be able to defend itself by striking military targets inside Russia,” Bacon told POLITICO, adding that Russia is unlikely to escalate further by targeting NATO members. “Why are we the ones fearing Putin? He should fear us.”
Volker agrees, attributing Biden’s caution to a Cold War mindset. “The president is stuck in an outdated view that war with Russia must be avoided at all costs,” he said, criticizing Biden's advisors for their overly cautious stance.
Comments
Post a Comment