Biden authorizes Ukraine to attack Russian territory with US missiles international

A new coup in the war in Ukraine. The government of United States President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use long-range American weapons to attack the interior of Russia, according to reports from the Reuters agency and newspapers this Sunday. the new York Times And Washington PostThe move represents a major shift in Washington’s policy in a war where until now the White House had opposed Kiev’s attacks on Russian territory due to concerns that Moscow could respond forcefully, even with nuclear weapons.

According to Reuters, citing “sources familiar with the matter”, Ukraine is planning to launch its first long-range attack inside Russia in the coming days. To do this, it will use the ATACMS missile system that the United States began providing this year. ATACMS has a range of approximately 300 kilometers. He Times Specify that Ukrainian projectiles will be launched against Russian and North Korean targets to protect Ukrainian troops based in the western Russian region of Kursk.

So far, neither the White House nor the State Department have officially confirmed the measure, which was leaked as Biden stressed the need to fight climate change on the eve of his participation in the G-20 summit. To expose the Brazilian Amazon were in Manaus in Rio de Janeiro. The President appeared before the press in the forest shortly after the news broke, although he limited himself to making statements about the environment without accepting questions.

The change in the US position – which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had claimed on several occasions and over which experts in Washington are divided – was announced hours after Russia resumed massive bombings against Ukrainian energy infrastructure Was. And this comes in response to the Russian decision to deploy North Korean troops (about 10,000 according to US intelligence services) to intervene in the war, according to US media., Washington has repeatedly expressed its concern about the involvement of these troops, which it believes could have serious consequences in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific. The White House had warned on several occasions that, if involved in war, North Korean troops would represent a legitimate target for Ukrainian attacks.

According to the newspaper, the attacks are not intended to change the course of the war, but to make it clear to troops that they could be attacked and to discourage North Korean leader Kim Jong-un from taking part in that conflict. Pyongyang already supports Moscow in the production and shipment of ammunition in addition to other war materials. The presence of North Korean troops was one of the issues Biden put on the table in his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Lima on Saturday. Biden called for pressure from Beijing, North Korea’s great traditional ally, to stop the deployment from escalating.

The authority could also help Ukraine in the phase of the war when Russia is the aggressor and the invaded country is having trouble covering its casualties with enough experienced troops at the front. And if the parties come to the table for peace talks, it could put Kiev in a better negotiating position. The White House this week provided assurances about something it wants to achieve in this phase of the transition in Washington and made it known to Trump himself during Wednesday’s meeting between the outgoing president and the incoming president: that “during and “After the transition, Ukraine is left in the strongest position possible on the battlefield so that it can be in the best possible position at the negotiating table,” declared National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

This decision of Washington comes two months before the inauguration of Donald Trump as the new President on January 20. The Republican leader expresses himself in complimentary terms towards the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, and assures that during his term he will end the war “one day”. Trump has not specified what precise solution he has in mind, although his future vice president, J.D. Vance, has suggested that Kiev itself would have to resign in order to give up the occupied territory.

“Increase the war before leaving office,” he wrote in a comment on the social network.

On the other hand, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski acknowledged that Biden “has responded to the North Korean troop deployment and the massive Russian missile strike in a language that Putin understands.”

The first US authorization for the use of its weapons on Russian territory, in a much more limited manner, came in May. Russia had attacked Ukraine’s second city, Kharkov. To defend it, Washington approved the use of HIMARS air defense missiles with a range of about 80 kilometers in the Russian border area. But fear of a Russian reaction blocked more ambitious measures, with Zelensky insisting that Ukraine could not, for example, respond to bombings from inside Russian territory on the border.

“This change in policy was long overdue. Article 5 of the UN Charter gives Ukraine the right to self-defense. We must abandon this strange logic that Russia can attack Ukraine from anywhere on its territory, but Ukraine cannot retaliate. Fears of escalation, including Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons, raised concerns about removing the veto, but the likelihood of such an escalation, which was always low in my view, is now even lower given Trump’s victory in the elections. There is no way Putin will drop a nuclear bomb on Ukraine just weeks before Trump returns to the presidency. So there is no counterpart to removing this veto,” Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Moscow during the reign of Barack Obama and now professor at Stanford University, wrote on his social networks.

In contrast, Jennifer Kavanaugh of the conservative think tank Defense Priorities reported that the measure “would not significantly improve Ukraine’s military situation, but it would escalate United States and NATO involvement in the conflict and increase the risk of Russian aggression.” “Escalation, including potential retaliation against European or US targets.”