In Rio, Joe Biden called, Monday, November 18, on the G20 countries to support the “sovereignty” of Ukraine. Hours earlier, the President of the United States finally authorized the Ukrainian military to use long-range missiles to strike Russian territory.
Two months before the end of his mandate, this decision has largely divided the Democratic camp, including Joe Biden’s advisers. US administration officials interviewed by the New York Times warned: “The weapons are expected to be initially used against Russian and North Korean troops in defense of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region of western Russia. »
Since August, kyiv has launched a major military operation and in turn invaded part of Russian territory. The initial objective was to open a front to force Russia to limit its advance on Ukrainian soil and force Moscow to negotiate. “Today, the United States appears to support this strategy. In August, the Ukrainian operation was carried out with the support of long-range weapons.notes a Ukrainian journalist.
For former minister Tymofiy Mylovanov, “The Biden administration’s weakness in the face of Putin is the main reason we are entering the third year of war. The Ukrainians could have stopped Putin in 2022 if Biden had not hesitated ».
A thousand days of war
In recent weeks, Ukraine has suffered significant waves of bombing. While this Tuesday, the Russian invasion began a thousand days ago, several residents, including Tania, in kyiv, note “a real wear and tear in the face of these daily and nightly strikes which prevent any rest after three years of war”. She notes: “The Russian invasion is slowly killing us. People are leaving the country again in the face of increasing difficulties: power cuts, high prices, unemployment. I hope this decision will push Moscow to negotiate. »
Why now? Two reasons are given by members of the Biden administration. The first starts from the situation on site. The Russian army is reportedly preparing a large offensive to recover the parts of its territory occupied by Ukraine in the Kursk region. The 8,000 North Korean soldiers could participate.
For General Olivier Kempf, “It would appear that use would be limited to the Kursk pocket. The United States imposes a tactical restriction. The escalation, which is real, remains measured with this targeting. Ukraine only controls 536 km2 against 900 km2 initially. Washington intends to allow kyiv to keep a piece of Russian territory as part of future negotiations ».
With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency from January 20, Joe Biden wishes to guarantee room for maneuver for Ukraine, the Republican candidate having repeated his desire “bring a quick end to the war”.
“This validates Ukrainian realism. While there was military doubt about the objective of the operation in Kursk last August, it takes on its full meaning in the perspective of negotiations. The Ukrainian war effort still remains significant with 40,000 to 50,000 men mobilized. They demonstrate their heroism after three years of war. If the south of Donbass appears lost, the sectors in the north are generally resisting despite the Russian effort. The use of Atacms missiles will allow them to locally rebalance the largely unfavorable fire ratio by targeting Russian logistical needs and ground-to-ground artillery.explains the director of the strategic synthesis firm La Vigie, Olivier Kempf.
A new involvement of the United States
What is it about? Atacms are known as the Army’s Tactical Missile System. These are American ballistic missiles with a range of 300 kilometers with a warhead containing approximately 170 kilograms of explosives. They can be fired from the Himars and M270 mobile launchers, which were supplied by the United States, Great Britain and Germany. The question remains about the quantity available to the Ukrainians.
After tanks, planes, anti-aircraft defenses, a new turning point seems to be taking shape. This new red line “carries a risk but it remains limited to one area and over two months. Donald Trump can, on January 20, put an end to it immediately”analyzes Olivier Kempf. Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned on Monday “the outgoing administration in Washington (which) intends to take measures to continue to add fuel to the fire and provoke a further rise in tensions”.
This authorization would lead to “a fundamentally new situation in terms of US involvement in this conflict”he warned. In September, Vladimir Putin warned that such a measure by the West “would mean nothing less than direct involvement of NATO countries in the war in Ukraine”.
kyiv’s allies, including France, believe that this new milestone taken by Joe Biden was a credible option. “You heard President (Emmanuel) Macron, in Meseberg (Germany), on May 25, where we openly said that it was an option that we were taking into consideration”said the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will urge G20 leaders to « doubler » their support for Ukraine.
In the United States, reactions are divided, between criticism of a late choice and the Trumpist movement which was quick to condemn this decision. For Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at a Washington-based think tank, Defense Priorities, close to the non-interventionist movement, “The decision to launch strikes inside Russia is strategically unwise and operationally unnecessary. This decision will not significantly improve Ukraine’s military position, but it will intensify US and NATO involvement in the conflict and increase the risk of escalation..
Peace plans on hold
This decision could above all slow down possible negotiations, which, after more than two years at a standstill, seemed to be able to start in recent days. Volodymyr Zelensky himself opened the door to an end to the war “by diplomatic means”this Saturday, November 16. But the new arsenal of the Ukrainian army calls into question these words, as well as the various attempts at foreign mediation. Like this appeal to Vladimir Putin from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who hoped to draw “serious negotiations with Ukraine with the aim of achieving a just and lasting peace”.
The Biden administration also deals a severe blow to the Sino-Brazilian peace plan, proposed at the end of May in Beijing, by President Lula’s senior advisor, Celso Amorim, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. “The top priority is to calm the situation as quickly as possiblerecalled its spokesperson Lin Jian on November 18. It is in the interests of all parties to cease fire, end the war as soon as possible and seek a political solution. »
The proposal put forward by China and Brazil, two of the most important voices in the Global South, focused on direct dialogue between the belligerents and a de-escalation of tensions, to which new missiles will not contribute. But, for certain Atlanticist observers, this authorization would only have been given for deterrent purposes. It would therefore be a “peace through strength” what would Joe Biden risk… And his successor? Donald Trump, who will take office next January, was first ” ready “ to contact his Russian counterpart. And to claim to have « plans » to stop the war “in twenty-four hours”for better or for worse.
Before officially starting talks with all the stakeholders at the end of January, Donald Trump has already started unofficial negotiations between his team and members of the Russian administration. But a question remains: is Vladimir Putin inclined to give in and negotiate something? How can we constrain it and guarantee the sustainability of a possible agreement?
To be the newspaper of peace, our daily challenge
Since Jaurès, the defense of peace has been in our DNA.
- Which still informs today about the actions of pacifists for disarmament?
- How many media point out that decolonization struggles still exist, and that they must be supported?
- How much value do international solidarityand unambiguously commit to the side of the exiles?
Our values have no borders.
Help us support the right to self-determination and the option of peace.
I want to know more!
