Why have long-range munitions yet to be advanced to Ukraine?

Why have long-range munitions yet to be advanced to Ukraine?

Dear Valued Reader, 

French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to declare readiness to send French troops to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian breakthrough, along with the U.K.’s indication to support Ukraine’s offensive capabilities, represent a significant shift in the approach of some Western allies toward the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

Please take a look at our analysis. 

Why have long-range munitions yet to be advanced to Ukraine?

Ukraine crisis: Bridges destroyed outside Donetsk by Russia

In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea in a blatant violation of international norms and Ukraine’s sovereignty. The annexation served as a precursor to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. The Western allies are deeply concerned about Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. 

There is a growing apprehension that this could be the beginning of a more considerable territorial expansion, potentially targeting even a NATO member state. However, after Russia annexed Crimea in Ukraine, the U.S. response was not forceful enough. The U.S. and its allies responded by imposing moderate economic and travel restrictions on specific Russian individuals and companies. However, these measures may have been insufficient to deter Russia from further aggressive actions. 

Many countries, including Russia, have survived crippling sanctions by the U.S. and its allies. Particularly Russia, which has demonstrated its willingness to accept severe economic consequences to pursue its aims in Ukraine. Therefore, only a more aggressive offensive by Ukraine, supported by the Western allies, will change Putin’s calculus. 

Since the outset of its conflict with Russia, Ukraine has sought additional offensive weaponry from its Western allies to bolster its defenses. However, the United States has expressed reservations about providing such munitions due to concerns that doing so could inflame tensions and trigger unintended escalation. The Obama administration approved and supplied only non-lethal defensive equipment such as body armor, helmets, air defense radars, medical supplies, communication tools, and rations to Ukraine. While helpful, Ukraine needed more than these items to secure victory against a well-equipped adversary.

It is essential to recognize that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a blatant breach of international law. Despite this, the response from the United States and its allies was relatively weak and lacked decisiveness. This response may have inadvertently emboldened Putin and encouraged him to take further aggressive actions against Ukraine in the years that followed. While it is impossible to say for sure, it is entirely plausible that a more robust response at the time could have deterred Putin from re-invading Ukraine in 2022.

A more assertive approach towards Russia is required to prevent any further escalation of the conflict and ensure the safety and security of the region. The United States has provided Ukraine with a substantial aid package of $75 billion, with an additional $61 billion recently approved. Furthermore, NATO allies have collectively sent a staggering $100 billion to Ukraine since the Russo-Ukrainian War began. However, Ukraine may never turn the corner if it does not repurpose those aid funds for an offensive against Russia. 

Nuclear bomb explosion and destruction

French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to declare willingness to send French troops to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian breakthrough, along with the U.K.’s indication of support for Ukraine’s offensive capabilities, represent a significant shift in the approach of some Western allies toward the Russo-Ukrainian War. Such statements indicate a departure from the previously more passive stance of some Western countries, particularly the United States, and reflect a willingness to take a more proactive role in supporting Ukraine’s defense and deterring Russian aggression. In response to statements from French President Macron and U.K. Foreign Secretary Cameron, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons on their assets. 

Nuclear weapons pose an unmatched and unprecedented threat to humanity. The U. S. and its allies must take a resolute stance against their deployment and use. However, more than opposition alone, there is a need to communicate to leaders — like Putin — the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war. No one would emerge victorious from such a conflict. Therefore, it is essential that Putin considers the physical and moral implications of Russia’s participation in a nuclear war and prioritizes the safety and survival of his people above all else. 

Visit our website: http://www.moderatevoices.org.

Please send us your comments.

Nicholas A. Owoyemi

President & CEO (Author)

Moderate Voices of America

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, New York 10005

212 406-1958

info@moderatevoices.org

www.moderatevoices.org

Nicholas A. Owoyemi is also the Principal Financial Executive with American Financiers Group, LLC. in New York City.

Popular Category

Popular Category