https://arab.news/n29uq
US President Joe Biden last week finally allowed Ukraine to use American-made long-range missiles against targets inside the Russian Federation. In addition, the administration disclosed that, for the first time, the US would provide Kyiv with antipersonnel landmines — something Biden had been reluctant to do because of pressure from within his own party.
Make no mistake: both these measures will have a positive impact on the battlefield, especially in the area surrounding Kursk Oblast. But the White House’s delay is concerning.
For more than 100 days, Ukrainian soldiers have controlled a piece of Russian territory in this region. Ukraine’s decision to launch operations in Kursk back in August made perfect sense. By holding Russian territory, Ukrainian forces have forced Moscow to divert resources from other sections of the front line to Kursk and created bargaining power for any future negotiations. Furthermore, Ukraine’s success in this operation reminded the world that success is possible when the right weapons and support are provided. The capture of Russian territory also gave a much-needed morale boost to Ukrainians, who have endured slow but steady Russian advances along other parts of the front line.
Yet, from the moment Ukraine launched its operation in Kursk, it had been asking for permission to use American-made missiles to strike targets inside Russia. Ukrainian officials knew that Russian forces were preparing a major counterattack. This threat became even more pressing with the arrival of more than 10,000 North Korean troops deployed to help Russia retake the territory Ukraine had captured. Throughout Russia’s buildup in the region, Ukraine was able to pinpoint where troops were staging and where supply points were located. Frustratingly, these targets were out of range for Ukraine’s existing weapons. Until this week, the US was unwilling to approve the use of its systems, fearing such actions might be viewed as escalatory by Moscow.
This week’s decision to allow these weapons’ use, along with Washington’s agreement to supply antipersonnel mines to bolster Ukraine’s defenses, highlights a recurring theme: the US delivering aid to Ukraine too little, too late.
American indecision cost Ukraine dearly, forcing it to respond reactively instead of proactively
Luke Coffey
This pattern has plagued America’s support for Ukraine since the early days of the war in 2022. To give credit where it is due, Biden rushed crucial aid to Ukraine in the early weeks of the conflict, enabling the successful defense of Kyiv and later counteroffensives. But for much of the war, Ukraine’s requests for critical weapons systems have gone unanswered — or have remained unfulfilled until the need became urgent.
For example, from the start of the conflict, Ukraine requested the HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, which proved to be highly effective. However, it was not until after Mariupol fell to Russian forces in May 2022 that the first HIMARS arrived. That summer, Ukraine repeatedly sought Patriot air defense systems to protect its skies. The US did not approve their transfer until Russia escalated airstrikes in October and November of that year. Even then, it took months to train Ukrainian forces to operate them, leaving the country vulnerable throughout the winter.
Other delays affected the provision of cluster munitions, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and the long-range ATACMS missiles. While the US eventually authorized all these systems, its indecision cost Ukraine dearly, forcing it to respond reactively instead of proactively.
So, how does Biden’s recent announcement affect Ukraine’s prospects in the war? Had these weapons been approved sooner, they could have disrupted some of Russia’s progress along the front lines. Now, their impact will likely be limited to the ongoing fighting around Kursk Oblast. Some critics argue that the timing is irresponsible, considering Biden is now a lame-duck president who will hand over power to Donald Trump in January. On the contrary, Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russian targets actually strengthens Trump’s position in potential peace talks. These weapons give Trump an additional bargaining chip to pressure Moscow — a tool he would not otherwise have had.
The White House’s delays in providing key military equipment is one reason why many Ukrainians are open to the idea of a Trump presidency. Few deny that Trump sincerely wants to end the war, though many are unsure how he intends to accomplish this. Ukrainians have grown increasingly frustrated with the current administration’s approach: providing just enough support to give the appearance of action, but not enough to ensure success. The delay in allowing Ukrainians to strike inside Russia is only the latest example of this hesitancy.
These weapons give Trump an additional bargaining chip to pressure Moscow — a tool he would not otherwise have had
Luke Coffey
This frustration has led some Ukrainians to consider gambling on Trump. Speculation even suggests that Trump, during his recent meeting with Biden, influenced the timing of this policy shift. While unconfirmed, it seems unlikely that the two leaders met without discussing Ukraine, one of the most pressing foreign policy challenges facing the US.
If Trump is serious about bringing all sides to the negotiating table, his top priority should be getting Ukraine into a position of strength. Allowing Ukraine to target Russian command and control centers while disrupting supply chains is a critical first step. These actions could tilt the balance of power, paving the way for meaningful negotiations.
The US’ reluctance to act decisively has undoubtedly prolonged the war and increased its costs. While the latest decision comes late, it still holds the potential to shape the outcome of the current battle in Kursk in a positive way.
The lesson from this war is clear: timely aid can mean the difference between stalemate and success. The latest announcement, though overdue, underscores the importance of providing Ukraine with the tools it needs in a timely manner and not months after the fact.
As the US undertakes a transfer of power, the coming months will be crucial for Ukraine.
• Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey