U.S. soldiers launch the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) from the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) in Delamere, Northern Territory, Australia in July 2023. The U.S. allows Ukraine to use American-provided weapons in cross-border strikes to counter attacks by Russian forces. But it doesn’t allow Kyiv to fire long-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, deep into Russia. (Andrew Dickson/U.S. Army)
Vladimir Putin on Thursday came as close to threatening war with the United States and Europe as he has ever done. Before dismissing his warnings as more bluster, Washington needs to seriously consider its next moves. Foolishly pushing ahead with plans to remove restrictions on Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles anywhere in Russia could undo 75 years of NATO keeping us out of war.
In July, Washington feted heads of state of all NATO members in celebrating the 75th anniversary of the alliance. President Joe Biden told the assembled group that the alliance “held high the torch of liberty during long decades of the Cold War.” Today, we may be on the verge of squandering that hard-earned liberty, potentially plunging NATO into a destructive, wholly unnecessary war with Russia.
In February 2022, Russian forces violated the Ukrainian border, flooding tens of thousands of armored combat troops into much of northern and eastern Ukraine. In response, NATO countries immediately began to support Kyiv’s troops with weapons and ammunition. There was some early trepidation that the weapons supplied had to be limited so as to mitigate the risk of the war’s escalation to a general fight between NATO and Russia.
Over time, those fears became muted, as so-called “red lines” by Russia were approached and then crossed, with apparently no reaction. The West first sent hand-held anti-air and anti-tank missiles, then 155 mm towed howitzers, later progressing to older armored vehicles and tanks to Ukraine. When Russia only complained but took no action, the offerings increased to front-line tanks and APCs, such as British Challenger Tanks, German Leopard 2 tanks, US M1A1 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
Again, no apparent reaction from Moscow, so the ante was increased from U.S. and NATO countries to include multiple rocket launch systems such as HIMARS, but only the short-range munitions were approved. Later, longer variants were given, and even major systems such as the British Storm Shadow missile, U.S. Patriot Air Defense System, and within the past few months, even American F-16 fighter jets. In nearly every case, Russia complained and threatened but took no action to expand the war beyond the borders of Ukraine.
Many in the West concluded that Putin was full of bluster and threatening words, but would not follow up with concrete action. Since he had not done so throughout the war, the thinking goes, he never will. Thus, NATO countries have a free hand to do almost anything in support of Ukraine short of physical intervention of U.S. or NATO troops. Most recently, supporters of perpetual and unlimited support to Ukraine have been lobbying for a removal of any restrictions on the use of long-range American and European missiles.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants to use the weapons to strike Russian airfields deep in the country, command and control facilities, and ammunition depots, as well as arms factories. The Ukrainian leader claims that being free to attack those targets will either harm Russia’s ability to conduct combat operations on the 1,000 km line of contact, or cause Putin to rethink the war and conclude a negotiated settlement on terms beneficial to Kyiv.
Those may be comforting aspirations for the Ukraine side, but they are divorced from reality and the lifting of restrictions on Western long-range missiles would be more likely to expand the war rather than wind it down. The hard truth is that the West doesn’t have that many long-range missiles to give Ukraine, and even if all of them found their targets — an unlikely prospect, given Russia’s robust air defense network — they would at most cause a slight diminution of Russian capacity. But at worst, they would cause Russia to expand the war against the West.
On Thursday, Putin issued his most direct threat against the West of any statement he’s made in his decades in power. He told a local TV reporter in Moscow that if the United States and Europe allow long-range weapons to be used by Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, it would represent war between NATO and Russia. In that event, he bluntly said, “It would mean that NATO countries, the U.S., European countries, are at war with Russia.”
That would change the very nature of the 2½ year conflict, he continued, and his forces would “take the appropriate decisions based on the threats that we face.”
Since its disastrous first year of war, Russia has since expanded the size of its force to nearing 1.5 million active troops, continues to recruit up to 30,000 soldiers a month, has expanded its defense industrial base to a full 24/7/365 operation (producing upward of 4 million artillery shells a year and 100,000 drones a month), and remains the dominant force in the air.
A Chatham House report from this past summer warns that Russia’s air force and navy “remain critical parts of the nuclear and conventional strategic deterrence force, potentially holding NATO assets at risk of destruction.” Further, Russia’s electronic warfare capacity, anti-drone technologies, and counter-missile capacities “are still able to offset NATO and US conventional superiority.”
Russia currently has underway a joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan with China, including a whopping 400 vessels. They have concluded treaties and defense contracts with Iran and North Korea to produce unknown but reportedly huge amounts of weapons, ammunition, drones and missiles. China has recently been exposed as providing “very substantial” military support to Russia. And of course, there is the nuclear threat.
There is absolutely no value in America trying to test the limits of Russian willingness to go to war with the West over the introduction of long-range weapons. Such weapons won’t tip the balance of power in Ukraine’s favor in any circumstance, but granting Kyiv permission to use our weapons to strike deep within Russia could get us sucked into a fight with a nuclear-armed rival — a fight we can and should seek to avoid.
Daniel L. Davis, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel with four combat deployments, is presently Senior Fellow at Defense Priorities and host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show.
