The United States is willing to help Ukraine in Crimea

WASHINGTON – For years the United States has insisted that Crimea remain part of Ukraine.

However, the Biden administration has taken a hard line since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, refusing to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs to attack the Crimea peninsula, which Russia has used as a base for devastating attacks.

Now that line is starting to soften.

After months of talks with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to admit that Ukraine may need the power to attack the Russian sanctuary, even if such a moveto increase the risk of escalation, according to several US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate.

Crimea, located between the Black Sea and the Sea of ​​Azov, is home to tens of thousands of entrenched Russian troops and numerous Russian military bases.

White House officials insist so there is no change of posture. Crimea, they say, belongs to Ukraine.

“Throughout the war we have maintained that Crimea is Ukraine, and Ukraine has the right to defend itself and its sovereign territory within its internationally recognized borders,” said Adrienne Watson, Security Council spokeswoman national.

Privately, military and administration officials questioned Ukraine’s usefulness by focusing its attacks on Crimea, arguing that the Ukrainian military had better goals elsewhere on the battlefield.

But the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea may be threatened, it would strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.

Furthermore, there are fears that the Kremlin will retaliate by using a tactical nuclear weapon they darkenedUS officials and experts said, though they warned the risk remains.

The new way of thinking about Crimea – illegally annexed by Russia in 2014 – shows how far officials in the Biden administration have come since the start of the war, when they were wary even of acknowledge publicly that the United States was supplying Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukrainian troops.

But throughout the conflict, the United States and its NATO allies have loosened the handcuffs they had imposed on themselves, going from providing Havelin and Stinger to advanced missile systems, air defense systems patriotarmored fighting vehicles and even some western tanks to give Ukraine a chance to fight back against the onslaught of Russia.

Now the Biden administration is considering what would be one of its boldest moves to date, helping Ukraine attack the peninsula that the president Vladimir Putin of Russia sees it as an integral part of its quest to restore the Russian glory of the past.

US officials are in discussions with their Ukrainian counterparts over the use of US-supplied weapons, from missile systems HIMARS to Bradley Fighting Vehicles, to possibly attack Putin’s tight grip on a land bridge that serves as a critical supply route linking Crimea to Russia via the cities of Melitopol and Mariupol, occupied by Russia.

However, the president Joe Biden it is not yet ready to deliver the long-range missile systems Ukraine needs to attack Russian facilities on the peninsula.

Ukrainian officials have long insisted that Crimea is a major target of their attacks and that continued military pressure on Russian bases is a significant part of their strategy.

The Ukrainian military has also discussed with US officials the importance of increasing pressure on the Russian rear in Crimea, which supports military operations in other parts of Ukraine.

With the Black Sea Fleet, a major Russian air base, command posts and logistics centers supporting Russian operations in southern Ukraine, the peninsula represents a important focus in Ukraine battle plans.

By deciding to hand over the Bradleys to Ukraine, the Biden administration came close to providing Ukraine with something top Ukrainian officials have been begging for months from the United States:

direct US aid to move Ukraine on the offensive, including the attack on Crimea.

Bradleys are armored personnel carriers equipped with powerful 25mm guns and guided missiles that can take on Russian tanks.

Frederick Hodges, a retired lieutenant general and former US Army high command in Europe, said Ukrainian troops could use the Bradleys to help cut the land bridge in the coming months.

Having military bases in Crimea as a base of operations was the main reason Russian forces were able to seize land in southern Ukraine last year, according to a US official.

Reducing the capacity of these forces is a key goal of the Ukrainians on the battlefield.

“Ukraine could use the Bradleys to move forces along major highways, such as the M14, linking Kherson, Melitopol and Mariupol,” added Seth Jones, senior vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Any Ukrainian infantry advancing through these areas would face significant fire from Russian positions, and the Bradleys offer useful firepower and protection for the troops.”

The Bradleys, along with British tanks and armored fighting vehicles that France and Germany have agreed to send, could form the vanguard of an armored force that Ukraine could use in a counter-offensive this winter or spring, the government and independent analysts.

“We believe now is the right time to step up our support for Ukraine,” British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said on Tuesday during a visit to Washington.

“We can’t let this drag on and it becomes sort of kind of stagnant wear on the WWI“.

The UK MoD said in a Twitter message last week that in recent weeks,

Russia had strengthened defensive fortifications in central Zaporizhzhia, a province in southern Ukraine near the land bridge and where Russia maintains a large force.

If Ukraine focuses on retaking Zaporizhzhia, preliminary strikes could include striking targets in nearby Crimea.

A Ukrainian breakthrough in Zaporizhzhia would seriously challenge the feasibility of the Russian “land bridge”, says the British assessment.

Ukraine also has US-supplied HIMARS long-range missile systems.

With the recapture of Kherson in the south last year, Ukrainian frontlines can now use them to attack key supply routes out of Crimea, a US military official said in an interview.

Top US and Ukrainian commanders will hold a high-level planning meeting in Germany this week to finalize planning for the offensive, another senior US official said.

The exercise, the official said, is intended to align Ukraine’s battle plans with the types of weapons and supplies NATO allies are contributing.

Ukrainian authorities fear their country will not be able to survive years of stalemate conflict as Russia continues to hammer cities and towns.

So they see no choice but to target Crimea and endanger it, a senior US official said, noting the issue came up in recent high-level meetings in the White House.

However, despite the additional weaponry, the Biden administration does not believe Ukraine could take Crimea militarily – and indeed, there are still concerns that such a move could lead to Putin taking retaliation with an escalating response.

But, according to officials, their assessment now is that Russia must believe Crimea is in danger, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations.

By demonstrating a strike capability in Crimea, US officials say, Ukraine could demonstrate that Russian control is not established.

The Biden administration also increasingly believes that striking Russia’s rear by pulling out of Crimea could seriously damage Moscow’s ability to push its front lines further, officials say.

“No Crimea, the whole thing It falls apartsaid Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Ukraine during the Obama administration.

Contributing to this shift in mindset, officials say, was the alleviation of fears that an attack on Crimea would lead Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon.

“It seems to me that, more and more, the administration is recognizing that the threat of a Russian escalation may not be what they thought it was before,” Hodges said.

Change?

While Ukrainian attacks inside Russia continue to cause concern among US officials, Moscow’s reaction to regular Ukrainian special operations or covert attacks in Crimea, including against Russian air bases, command posts and fleet ships of the Black Sea, was moderate.

“There’s more clarity about their tolerance for harm and attacks,” said Dara Massicot, senior policy researcher at Rand Corp.

“Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation by the Kremlin.”

Even so, Putin and the Russian public view Crimea as part of Russia, hence the attacks there could solidify Russian support for the war.

For their part, US officials say they do not know how Putin will react if Ukraine attacks Crimea using US-supplied weapons.

Massicot said none of Ukraine’s few attacks on Crimea so far threatened Russia’s ability to maintain its claim to the peninsula.

“So they may not be an accurate test of Russia’s resolve on this point,” he said.

Last month, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken reaffirmed the permanent US policy on Ukraine:

that the Biden administration was trying to help the country reclaim the territory it had taken from during and after of the Russian invasion last year.

“Our goal is to continue doing what we have been doing, which is to make sure that Ukraine has in its hands what it needs to defend itself, what it needs to deal with Russian aggression, to take back the territory that was taken from it. from 24 FebruaryBlinken told the Wall Street Journal Council of CEOs summit: By Blinken’s definition, that territory doesn’t include Crimea.

This stance, according to critics, gave the Russian military an untouchable haven from which to attack Ukraine.

“Essentially, we have put limits on Ukraine, saying this war will be fought on their soil and not on Russian soil,” said Philip Breedlove, a retired four-star air force general who was the Supreme Allied Commander of the BORN. Europe when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.

“Giving Russia a refuge from which to fight, without fear of reproach, is absolutely absurd. It makes no military sense.”

c.2023 The New York Times Society