Ukraine’s main military allies are letting go of kyiv’s hand as the Russian invasion marks 1,000 days and just weeks before Donald Trump assumes the US presidency.
First, the Biden administration responded to one of kyiv’s most repeated requests: authorization to attack Russian territory with long-range missiles. A day later, Ukraine launched its first attack with American missiles (ATACMS) across the border. These missiles have a range of 300 kilometers.
This Wednesday also saw the first Ukrainian attack on Russian territory with British Storm Shadow missiles, suggesting that the United Kingdom has followed the American example. British authorities have not publicly commented on this information.
Finally, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Wednesday approved the shipment of American-made antipersonnel mines to Ukraine, marking a new turning point in war policy. More than 160 countries, including Ukraine, have signed a treaty banning their use, but kyiv has long requested this type of weaponry.
“The allies abandon kyiv. For weeks, Biden has been under pressure from various areas to make this decision his legacy at the end of his term,” Carmen Claudín, a researcher specializing in Russia at the CIDOB think tank, told elDiario.es. “With this decision by Biden, Europeans can follow in his wake with more security,” he adds.
According to the American think tank Institute for the Study of War, “restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to carry out long-range attacks on Russian territory have allowed Russia to maintain sanctuary space within from its near and distant rear and to take advantage of it for its military operations. against Ukraine. » “Long-range Ukrainian attacks against military installations located in Russia’s rear are crucial to degrading Russian military capabilities across the entire theater of operations,” maintain its analysts.
For his part, Austin said the mine decision came as Russia increasingly relied on infantry soldiers to carry out its assaults. “Ukraine needs elements that can delay Russian efforts. They asked for it and I think it’s a good idea,” the Defense Secretary said.
These controversial weapons are banned, among other things, because they strike indiscriminately and because of the long-term danger they pose to the civilian population. Several NGOs have criticized Washington’s decision and point out that its use “is not ethical”. The United States maintains that its mines can be deactivated and would therefore no longer be dangerous. Russia, which did not sign the treaty, also used antipersonnel mines along the front in Ukrainian territory.
“Anti-personnel and anti-tank mines are a way to compensate for Ukraine’s lack of infantry. Offensive and defensive mining is very effective, allowing Ukraine to maintain its territory,” analyst Michael Kofman posted on the Bluesky social network. “Many of these are now launched from drones as a form of remote mining and some types have timers to defeat them.”
For his part, Rob Lee, an analyst at the think tank Foreign Policy Research Institute, argues that the mines could have “a greater impact on the battlefield than the policy change with attacks on Russian territory with [misiles] ATACMS”. For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that it was an “essential” tool to stop the Russian advance.
“In my opinion, the underlying problem [de estas medidas] It’s a question of whether this is enough now (it never has been) and whether it comes on time (until now it has always been out of time), says Claudín.
According to the analysis of the Institute for the Study of War, “Ukraine has only recently begun to equip itself with the weapons systems and military capabilities necessary to carry out modern large-scale combat operations” .
“Ukrainian forces did not receive F-16s and pilot training to operate F-16s in small numbers until 2024. Ukrainian forces did not first receive ATACMS until fall 2023, after the end of the 2023 Ukrainian counter-offensive. “Ukrainian forces only received Western tanks in small quantities for the first time in early 2023. “The systems and capabilities that Ukraine has received are all necessary to carry out large-scale multi-domain combat operations,” Ukraine analysts say. think tank.
Support for the war among Ukrainians collapses
“These measures must be supervised [de los aliados de Ucrania] in view of the end of the course of this war, not with the real peace that Ukrainians deserve, but with a freezing of the conflict with characteristics still difficult to discern,” says Claudín.
In this sense, while Western allies increase their military support for kyiv, the percentage of Ukrainians who defend the need to continue fighting until the war is won has been halved, from 73% at the start of the invasion at 38%. . current, according to a recent Gallup poll. For their part, the percentage of Ukrainians believing that kyiv should seek a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible increased from 22% to 52%. Among those who want a negotiated peace, 52% are open to territorial concessions.
Since Russia launched its invasion, the battlefront has remained primarily in the east and south of the country. In 2022, the regions most at risk of conflict were those in which the lowest percentage of the population was willing to continue fighting, even if a majority defended the fight. “Over time, support for the continuation of the war declined in all regions of Ukraine, regardless of their proximity to the front line. Support has fallen below 50% in all regions in 2024,” the survey claims.
According to information from Reuters from anonymous Russian sources, Moscow would be ready to freeze the conflict on the current fronts to negotiate an agreement with territorial concessions. However, President Putin’s spokesperson denied this information.
“Nuclear shock” or real risk
In response to this lifting of restrictions and these changes in policy by the allies, Russia modified its nuclear doctrine to authorize the use of this type of weapon against conventional attacks.
Moscow has used this threat several times since the invasion began, and many analysts in Washington do not view it as a real threat. “Russian nuclear vehemence,” calls the Institute for the Study of War. “This does not represent a substantial change in the threat of use of nuclear weapons,” he adds.
In this sense, the United States has not modified its nuclear doctrine and the Pentagon claims to have noted no change in Moscow’s position on the issue. For his part, the EU’s high representative for foreign policy, Josep Borrell, stressed that “this is not the first time that Russia has threatened nuclear escalation” and that doing so after the 1,000 days “has something symbolic”.
Pavel Podvig, a researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, believes that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine is currently not an option for Russia “mainly because it would not contribute to achieving any military goals and that Russia is currently moving forward.” In October, Russia made its biggest advances in Donbass since the invasion began.
“However, I cannot rule out that the Kremlin is willing to take a risk. Especially if Moscow believes it can count on a response [internacional] weak and we don’t know if he can count on it,” he adds on the Bluesky social network. The best way to prevent a nuclear attack is to ensure that it is politically impossible by bringing everyone, even Russia’s allies or neutral countries support this position, the analyst concludes.
