It doesn’t matter how many long-range missiles we give to Ukraine. Those alone will not change any dynamic on the battlefield—any more than the previous entry of Western tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, air defense weapons, HIMARS systems, or even the vaunted F16s. The war is lost for Kyiv.

by Daniel L. Davis          

The U.S. embassy in Kyiv  closed its doors on Wednesday, warning all its employees to “shelter in place” in the event of an air raid siren. The embassy shut down over fears a Russian attack against the American building could be imminent after Biden’s inexplicable  escalation of the war by authorizing long-range American weapons to be used deep inside Russia.

It is unclear why, this late in the war and in the eleventh hour of his presidency, Biden chose to  take action that carries a significant war escalation risk. That this decision represents a serious and unnecessary danger to the United States—while simultaneously raising the chances of a Ukrainian defeat—is very clear.

It is clear to those willing to see through the lens of reality. There are those in America that, on the surface, appear to have great credentials and have hailed Biden’s decision to allow the ATACMS missiles to be used by Ukraine to attack targets deep in Russia. Former generals  Jack Keane,  Barry McCaffrey, and Wesley Clark all came out in support of the president’s decision.  Keane actually complained that there were still  too many restrictions on the use of the missiles.

These “war-first” generals have given disastrous advice on television throughout this war. Recall that in September 2023, when the Ukrainian summer offensive had been exposed as a total failure,  David Petraeus declared that Ukraine could still cause the Russian defenses to “crumble.” Yet, as I had  written months before the offensive began, the fundamentals of war demonstrated that Ukraine had virtually no chance of success. How could a former four-star general not understand those fundamentals and—even months after failure was plainly evident—still claim the Russians would collapse?

In July of 2023, one month into the Ukrainian offensive and two months before Petraeus claimed Zelensky’s forces could still break the  Russian defense, I wrote in  Responsible Statecraft that it was already evident the offensive had failed. The most prudent, rational, and moral course of action for Kyiv and the West is “...to seek a negotiated settlement that preserves as much freedom and territory as possible for Kyiv. Ending the war now would end the deaths and injuries for tens of thousands of Ukraine’s brave and heroic fighters—men and women whom Kyiv will need to rebuild their country once the war ends.”

I recall these comments not to pat myself on the back but to show that the truth of the situation was plainly evident, both before, during, and after the offensive. Yet, the most senior ranking generals in the United States ignored them, advising Western governments to continue prosecuting the war. Imagine how many Ukrainian men would still be alive today if Biden had acknowledged the basic military realities in the summer of 2023 and sought a negotiated settlement.

The truth today is even more stark.

It doesn’t matter how many long-range missiles we give to Ukraine. Those alone will not change any dynamic on the battlefield—any more than the previous entry of Western tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, air defense weapons, HIMARS systems, or even the vaunted F16s. The war is lost for Kyiv. Period. Continuing to ignore reality—and listen to generals—is certain to increase the ultimate cost of  losing the war for Ukraine. What Biden is doing now, however, is worse. He is risking an expansion of the war, potentially drawing the United States into direct conflict with Russia.

Russia has been unambiguous in its declarations that the introduction of U.S. or Western long-range missiles into the war against Russia would represent the direct engagement of the West against Russia and force a “response.” According to  news reports, such attacks have now been made, and that could be the reason the United States evacuated its embassy this morning, fearing Russia may act on its threat.

It is  foolhardy to the highest order to risk the expansion of the war by allowing our long-range weapons to be used against Russia, especially because there is no military upside for doing so. Rather, it constitutes a major strategic risk of getting sucked into a war. Trump was, in part, elected by the American people because  he vowed to end the war in Ukraine. By taking this pointless risk two months before the end of his term, Biden could wreck any chance Trump might have to achieve peace.

Biden’s staunchest supporters should urgently call for him to stop this inflammatory drive before it's too late. The security of our country should be the priority for all Americans.

About the Author: Daniel L. Davis is the Senior Fellow & Military Expert for Defense Priorities, a retired Army Lt.Col. with four combat deployments, and host of the  Daniel Davis Deep Dive show on YouTube. Follow him on X:  @DanielLDavis1.        

© Copyright 2024 Center for the National Interest