Consider This from NPR - Would long-range missiles for Ukraine pull the U.S. into a war with Russia?

Episode Date: September 22, 2024

It's been more than two and half years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since then, the U.S. and its NATO allies have slowly and incrementally provided military assistance to Ukraine. In recent months, Ukraine has been pressing for American long-range missiles with the ability to strike deep into Russia. But some officials fear that providing such weapons could place the U.S. and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. Host Scott Detrow speaks with Pentagon reporter Tom Bowman. For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

There are roughly 500 miles between Kiev and Moscow. And since the very beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has provided weapons to Ukraine that are designed to cover long distances. First, the Pentagon sent long-range artillery pieces that can fire at targets around 20 miles away. Months later, the U.S. sent artillery rockets that can launch an explosive roughly 52 miles away. And now President Volodymyr Zelensky has set his sights at an even greater distance, 190 miles. That is the reach of a U.S.-made long-range missile that has the potential to hit military targets deep inside

Russia. For months now, President Zelensky has been requesting access to these advanced weapons from the U.S. and other Western nations. Here's U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken responding to a reporter from Sky News earlier this month on whether the U.S. was considering the request. So not ruling out at this stage? We never rule out, but when we rule in, we want to make sure it's done in such a way that it can advance what the Ukrainians are trying to achieve. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has already warned that such a tactic could mean war with the U.S. and his allies. Putin said in an interview,

quote, this will mean that NATO countries, the United States, European countries are fighting with Russia. And that, of course, raises concerns about nuclear weapons. Consider this. The Western long-range missiles have the potential to transform Ukraine's ability to defend itself. But at what cost? From NPR. The war in Ukraine will soon enter its third year. And over that period, the U.S. and its NATO allies have slowly and incrementally provided military assistance to Ukraine. At every step, the Biden administration has been cautious about both the

weaponry and the training it supplied, hoping to prevent escalating the war that Russia started. And this has frustrated Ukrainian officials and its most ardent supporters in the U.S. The latest debate, for months, the Ukrainians have been pressing for American long-range missiles with the ability to strike deep into Russia, a move that some officials fear could place the U.S. and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. I'm Tom Bowman. He joins us now to talk about it. Hey, Tom. Hey, Scott.

So I want to get to all the context in a moment. But first, let's directly start with this latest question. Throughout the conflict, the Biden administration has been cautious in approving American-made missiles hitting targets deeper into Russia. Do we think that request is ultimately going to be approved? You know, it's really hard to say at this point, Scott. We keep hearing it's under discussion. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met almost two weeks ago with his British counterpart,

Foreign Secretary David Lammy, and Blinken seemed to indicate it would happen. Let's listen. We have adjusted and adapted as needs have changed, as the battlefield has changed. And I have no doubt that we'll continue to do that. So, again, it sounds like they're moving in that direction. And, of course, President Biden later had a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and talked about allowing long-range weapons to be used. But it appears, again, there are still deliberations and no final decision. Now, Britain seems to be leaning forward on this issue because they see the recent move by Iran to provide

hundreds of missiles to Russia. It really changed the debate. The Brits have long-range missiles, too. It's called the Storm Shadow. And the French, by the way, have their own, the Scalp. But here's the thing, Scott. they both have American-made components and therefore would require U.S. approval. And even as over the last few years, we have seen some of the initial hardline warnings from Russia not play out, right? If you do X, that we will consider it a grave threat. If you do Y, we'll consider it a grave threat. It's hard not to see this particular one as having some merit. We are talking about missiles, partially American made, striking deep into Russia. And Putin has said that would be a move that would effectively mean Russia is now fighting NATO. No, that's absolutely right. And again,

from the start, the U.S. has been slowly ramping up military support to Ukraine while always weighing how Russia would respond. Putin has hinted at using tactical nuclear weapons, which gets everyone's attention. These are real concerns. But Putin, again, has made similar threats after the U.S. allowed, you know, Patriot missiles, F-16s. So a lot of this, people say, is bluster. Now, the current issue is allowing what's called a TACMS, an acronym that, you know, military loves acronyms. It stands for Army Tactical Missile System. Get this, can travel 190 miles. Right now, the U.S. is allowing Ukraine only to use them in Crimea to strike Russian military targets, and they've been quite successful. Now,

getting back to the British and the French long-range missiles, they can travel about 155 miles. So you can imagine the Ukrainians are pressing for that American weapon to use deep inside Russia, which can go farther. Yeah. Now, when you and I have had versions of this conversation with different points of will the U.S. allow this weapon system or that weapon system to go to Ukraine, you have at times pointed out that sometimes it was more of a symbolic conversation than something that was really central to the war. So I'm wondering, with these missiles, how necessary are these long-range weapons for Ukraine? And are there sufficient targets that they'd like to hit? You know, it kind of depends who you talk with. The Institute for

the Study of War says there are some 250 targets. They could be attacked with these long-range U.S. weapons, everything from airfields to oil and weapons depots, armored vehicles. And these attacks could also hurt Russia's ability to launch glide bombs into Ukrainian cities. We've been seeing a lot of that. But some in the Pentagon will tell you that the Russians have moved a lot of this, even beyond the range of those longer-range U.S. missiles. And defense officials also say that Ukrainians have also used most of their long range missiles hitting those Russian sites in Crimea. They don't have many left. But then the question is, of course, why can't you just send them more? The U.S. has thousands of these missiles and want to hold them in case, let's say, the U.S. is faced with an adversary, you know, military action in the

Pacific, Middle East, or Europe. So, you know, again, that's a question that's out there. Can you provide more? And we still don't have an answer to that. Let's say these get approved. Would it change the course of the war? Would it make a big difference? Well, no, no one is saying that, but it clearly will continue to hurt Russia, its war machine. Some officials are saying to Ukraine, listen, you're doing a good job with your drones and attacks deep inside Russia. Scott, just last week, a swarm of Ukrainian drones hit a massive weapons depot 300 miles inside Russia, just west of Moscow. So talk about deep inside Russia. And this weapons depot had also, get this,

had missiles supplied by North Korea. There's little doubt the U.S. intelligence helped in that targeting. And American officials are telling Ukraine these relatively inexpensive drones are doing a great job. So don't just look to our missiles. Also, officials want Ukraine to focus more on defensive measures in the eastern part of their country, where right now Russia continues to make inroads. Of course, as we know, Ukraine pushed deep into the Kursk region of Russia. But what did that really achieve, U.S. officials are asking now. They're saying this privately. But finally, the U.S. has been pressing Ukraine to do a better job at recruiting younger Ukrainians for its military. But finally, the U.S. has been pressing Ukraine to do a better job at recruiting younger

Ukrainians for its military. Right now, get this, they're not recruiting any soldiers under the age of 25. But the U.S. military, about 87% of their new recruits are between 18 and 24 years old. Right. So, Tom, let's back up here for a moment. We're coming up on the third anniversary of the war, at least the expansion of the war. Russia had already effectively invaded Crimea years before that. What is the path forward? Because in many ways, it's a stalemate. And there are big questions about what U.S. support looks like, depending on who's elected president. Well, the big thing is, how do you define winning? Or as General David Petraeus famously said during the Iraq war, tell me how this ends. It's kind of the same thing here. U.S. military officials have said

neither side can win. Russia can't take over all of Ukraine. And Ukraine, they don't have the power to push all Russian forces out of their country. So what's the way ahead? No one really answers that question. And neither side, Ukraine or Russia, at this point seems intent on negotiations. And here at home, you know, Trump, of course, has been skeptical of spending more on Ukraine. And Kamala Harris has said the U.S the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you'll see more pressure for some type of negotiation, or at least talks, regardless of who's in the White House. That was Tom Bowman, who covers the Pentagon for NPR. This episode was produced by Catherine Fink and Brianna Scott. It was edited by Jeanette Woods and Andrew Sussman. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan.

And one more thing before we go, you can now enjoy the Consider This newsletter. We still help you break down a major story of the day, but you'll also get to know our producers and hosts, get some moments of joy from the All Things Considered team. You can sign up at npr.org slash consider this newsletter. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Scott Detrow.