According to reports in the media, US President Joe Biden has given Ukraine permission to use US missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometres to attack military targets in Russia's Kursk region, in a move that breaks with Washington's policy so far. What motivated the decision, and what effect will it have?
A final boost for the alliance
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Trump's upcoming inauguration is what prompted US President Joe Biden to make this move now, writes Ilta-Sanoma (Finland):
“President-elect Donald Trump is promising a quick end to the war. The fear is that this could be done on Russia's terms. Biden's decision can therefore be seen as a reaction to Trump's intentions. In the remaining weeks of his term in office he will try to channel as much aid as possible to Ukraine. Trump's plans are unclear. ... But Biden has assembled an alliance to support Ukraine without which the country would have long since lost the war against Russia.”
One last show of strength, please!
Now Scholz must finally give up his veto on the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles, demands the Frankfurter Rundschau (Germany):
“This is not about enabling Ukraine to spread terror in Russian cities. On the contrary: the German missiles could curb Putin's terror against Ukrainian cities - for example if they were used to attack airfields from which Russian fighter jets take off on their murderous glide bombing missions. ... Biden and Scholz are both 'lame ducks' - politicians who have little to say because they are either about to leave office or face elections. They should use the time they have left to mobilise massive support for Ukraine.”
Thinking Out Loud – Where We’re at, What’s at Stake, and What Ronald Would Have Said
Europe can't just stand by and watch
The Europeans must be more resolute, La Libre Belgique (Belgium) urges:
“France and Germany in particular seem constrained and caught up in delicate domestic political considerations. However, Europe cannot remain on the sidelines. Supporting Ukraine also means defending national sovereignty and international law while avoiding the risk of encouraging Russia to continue its expansion in the direction of other countries such as the Baltic States or Finland. ... While the US readjusts its support, Europe must assume its strategic role. It cannot afford to adopt a wait-and-see stance, and it certainly cannot endorse a fait accompli diplomacy.”
Not decisive for the war
The BBC (UK) says the impact of this step is more psychological than military:
“The significance of the change in policy on long range weapons will be as much symbolic as strategic. Ukraine has been given limited quantities of the weapons – hundreds not thousands. US military officials have long argued that one weapon system cannot win the war, and that many key Russian targets – such as airfields – will still be out of range. Russia has already moved its jets further from the border. ... But this is still a significant psychological boost for Ukraine at a time when its defences have been crumbling.”
Danger of further escalation
Biden's decision will give this war a new dynamic, warns Visão (Belarus):
“After 1,000 days the conflict in Ukraine has become a genuine theatre of war, where all kinds of new and old weapons are being tested in a real environment. This will lead to countless shifts in military thinking and strategy, with the armed forces focusing less on quantity and more on highly effective and cost-efficient destruction equipment. And Biden has now finally authorised the use of long-range weapons on Russian territory. ... This is an escalation of force that will make an impact on the Kremlin. Threats and retaliatory moves won't be long in coming.”
Kremlin is already fighting the big fight
La Stampa (Portugal) suspects that Russia will try to bring Ukraine to its knees before Trump is sworn in:
“Joe Biden's permission ends the long hesitation fuelled by fears of 'escalation'. But the escalation is already there for all to see, and it's being fuelled by Russia. ... The offensive by Russian troops has a clear and unambiguous goal. ... By 20 January 2025 [Donald Trump's inauguration], a large part of Ukraine's territory is to be under Russian control and the enemy on the brink of extinction. The conflict could then be 'frozen', as Donald Trump wants it to be according to various reports - and on terms that would be as favourable to Russia as possible.”
Ukraine's interests could be deprioritised
Satakunnan Kansa (Italy) fears that Ukraine may end up as the big loser:
“It can be assumed that US support for Ukraine will decrease and responsibility will shift to Europe. The big concern, however, is that Europe has neither the leadership nor the resources to shoulder this responsibility. In the worst case scenario, Ukraine will be forced into a peace agreement with Russia that it finds hard to accept, despite big promises. After all, it's hardly conceivable that Russia will give up the conquered territories. ... Ukraine's interests are secondary if they stand in the way of the big countries' interests. ... From Finland's point of view this development is worrying.”
Reprinted from eurotopics. You can find the original here.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
