WASHINGTON – U.S. intelligence suggests President Biden authorized the use of U.S.-made long-range missiles to attack Russia’s Kursk region only for Ukraine, a move that Washington and Kiev said surprised Moscow. Attempting to do so may result in a wrong move.
on tuesday, Ukraine launches six ATACMS ballistic missiles in Russia’s Bryansk regionAccording to a US official, this is the first time the country has used powerful weapons in the 1,000-day war.
The attack on an ammunition supply site in Karachaev came a day after widespread reports citing US officials. Claims that Biden only OK’d use of ATACMS – pronounced “attack ’ems” – to target Kursk, where Russia had deployed 50,000 Russian and North Korean troops.
While there are many theories about what could have happened – ranging from inaccurate reports to Biden’s change of heart at the last minute – some experts say it may have been the result of “strategic ambiguity” by military officials, giving Moscow time to Be surprised even before you meet. Limit the damage.
Surprised Moscow by attacking in an area it did not expect, Ukrainians really got the best bang for their buck – Because experts say Russia was not as prepared as it could have been to respond to the attack or to move military equipment beyond the reach of ballistic missiles.
Still, much remains unknown because as of Tuesday neither the US nor Ukraine had publicly acknowledged the ATACMS policy change.
‘The missiles will speak for themselves’
George Barros of the Institute for the Study of War told The Post on Tuesday that it was possible that reports that the attacks were limited to Kursk were deliberately “misdirected.”
“This either-or policy was actually more generous and more comprehensive… and perhaps it was misrepresented in all the breaking news that has come out in the past day,” he said.
“The second kind of situation is that we did it – and that would be clever And that’s the first time we got really smart – and we signaled, signaled and telegraphed that this was just going to happen in a certain area, when, in fact, it’s more widespread,” Barros continued.
“In this case, we surprised the Russians with such a strike — which is a smart thing, and the kind of thing, you know, a superpower like the United States should do.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed the importance of strategic ambiguity in response to initial reports Sunday that Biden had given the green light to ATACMS in Russia, saying “In the media we received permission for the corresponding actions.” There’s a lot of discussion about doing that.”
“But attacks are not made with words. Such things are not announced. missiles will speak for themselves” he said in his daily address.
On Tuesday, the leader refused to answer whether Ukraine had shot down the ATACMS in Bryansk, instead giving a cryptic response that Kiev had its own domestically produced weapons capable of reaching that distance. Are capable.
“Ukraine has long-range capabilities. Ukraine has long-range drones of its own production. Now we have a rather long ‘Neptune’ (Ukrainian cruise missiles). And now we have ATACMS. And we will use all this,” he told reporters at a press conference.
Nevertheless, both Barros and Foundation for Defending Democracies Russia expert John Hardy acknowledged that this could simply be a case of miscommunication to the press and other war observers because “sometimes officials are not very specific when they report these things. Are.”
“If you look at most of the reporting, it’s kind of said that Kursk would be a priority, and it could expand from there, which I think you could take to mean that it’s only by authorizing Kursk. And Biden could give authorization for it elsewhere,” Hardy said.
“Or it could mean that, you know, Kursk is really focused on deterring a Russian attack, and the focus is on Kursk, and you might see other types of attacks in other areas in relation to that ,” he said, noting that it was possible the Bryansk location was supporting Russia’s Kursk campaigns.
However, there is one thing all experts agreed on: There is little chance that Biden expanded Ukraine’s firing officials overnight — and almost no chance that Kiev violated Washington-set protocols.
“I think it’s possible, but to me, it’s very unlikely,” Hardy said. “The Ukrainians follow closely the permission given by the US, and for obvious reasons they don’t want to go there and kill the golden goose.”
‘Desperate’ nuclear saber-rattling
Hours after Tuesday’s strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced he had changed Moscow’s “nuclear position” in apparent response. Change in US policy towards Ukraine,
The new policy allows Putin to potentially deploy nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Russia by any nation backed by a nuclear power – or as they claim Kiev has done.
But both experts and U.S. officials have dismissed the change in doctrine as an irresponsible nuclear strike by Moscow — with State Department spokesman Matthew Miller announcing Tuesday that the U.S. made no change to its nuclear stance in response. Is.
Barros further said that just because a policy changes does not mean Putin will employ it.
“This theory is just a Russian way of signaling – and it really smacks of desperation,” Barros said.
“The Russians understand that they are vulnerable and their means to respond to this are really quite limited. So they’re pulling out all the brakes they can to signal and try to motivate us to keep procrastinating, but it seems like it’s failing,” he said.
Hardy agreed, but acknowledged that “we must always read Russian declaratory policy seriously.”
“I think the likelihood that Russia will use nuclear weapons in response to this or other missile attacks on Russia is very, very low,” he told The Post.
Hardy based his assessment on Russia’s history of the boy-who-cried-wolf threatening nuclear strikes, as well as the consistent lack of use of nuclear weapons in far more intense periods of conflict.
“If you look, for me, the time in this war when Russian nuclear use was most likely was in September 2022, when Russia was humiliated by Ukrainian retaliatory strikes and staunch explosions,” he said. “The Russian lines virtually melted, and Ukraine was able to recapture entire territory and destroy an entire group of Russian forces. Russia did not use nuclear weapons there.”
Hardy pointed out that Putin also did not use nuclear weapons when Ukraine invaded the Kursk region.
“When Ukraine launches attacks in Crimea or other Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, Russia does not respond to those attacks with nuclear weapons, or indeed, what I would call really credible threats. So I think the possibility of nuclear use here is very low.”
Barros also encouraged observers to remember that the US and NATO provide their nuclear capabilities to deter Russia should avoid taking such drastic steps,
“We can also play the deterrence game, and I’m sure we’ve put some red lines and threats out there that have deterred the Russians from doing certain things as well,” Barros said.
(TagstoTranslate)world news
