| The news comes after the US president-elect, Donald Trump, reportedly spoke with Vladimir Putin and told him not to escalate the war in Ukraine. This did little, however, to convince Moscow, which recently launched a massive country-wide missile and drone attack against Ukraine’s infrastructure. It was the largest attack in months and is part of Russia’s attempt to devastate Ukraine’s capacity to generate energy during winter. Why now? Up until now, the US had hesitated to provide Ukraine with a long-range missile strike capability into Russia, citing concerns about escalation. Recent developments have shifted this position. White Housing briefings point in particular to the appearance of North Korean ground forces in Ukraine. While initial reports suggested North Korean troops might be deployed to support Russia, scepticism arose due to its military’s lack of recent combat experience, having not sent troops into battle since 1953. These doubts were dispelled recently when Kyiv confirmed that North Korean soldiers had already engaged in combat against Ukrainian forces in Kursk. Unnamed sources estimated that North Korea could mobilise approximately 100,000 troops, Bloomberg reported. Despite the lack of battlefield training, one expert notes that these soldiers have been rigorously prepared to endure extreme physical and psychological challenges. And regardless, Dan says, “these extra numbers might really help tip the balance at a time when Ukraine and Russia are suffering from war exhaustion”. Will it make a difference? It’s a major policy shift: the Biden administration is crossing a line it wasn’t prepared to cross before. The long-range missiles fire at greater depth than normal and would allow Kyiv to strike hundreds of targets deep inside Russian territory, Dan tells me. This could include staging points, military bases, logistics hubs, barracks and ammunition warehouses. But militarily, it will not change the trajectory of the war, Dan says. “Each time these discussions about an individual weapon type are considered, freighted with great significance, the reality has been they’ve only made an incremental difference in the battlefield. From Ukraine’s perspective, it is better to have them than not, but ultimately, no single weapon type is decisive in a complex war like this.” There also are not many of these long-range missiles available. Russia has been closely monitoring the debates in Washington and is likely prepared to adapt its operational strategies. “Each of these weapons comes along months, maybe years, after Ukrainians asked for them. It’s quite an agonising process,” Dan says. “They are clearly military useful, they have a psychological and deterrent effect but in terms of an actual destructive effect, not so much.” Russia’s response The Kremlin has issued a stark warning, threatening a “swift response” that could escalate tensions between the US and Russia. Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters yesterday: “It is clear that the outgoing administration in Washington intends to take steps to continue to add fuel to the fire and to further inflame tensions around this conflict.” Peskov confirmed that the words of Putin in September still stand, when the Russian president said allowing Kyiv to use longer-range weapons against targets inside Russia would mean Nato would be directly “at war” with Moscow. “I think they’ll try and adopt some scary rhetoric to try and affect US public opinion,” Dan says. “Especially when Trump is incoming and there’s more scepticism in the US about American military aid to Ukraine.” Russia could also escalate various grey zone activities, like signal jamming and maritime harassment. Russia has already been doing this around the Baltic states, but might try to upscale various nuisance activities, as it did over the weekend in Irish waters. Another scare tactic could be nuclear threats, but Dan cautions: “I don’t think we should take the idea that Russia might use a nuclear weapon, especially in a country where they’re winning, very seriously however.” Ukraine remains trapped in an agonising strategic predicament, perpetually seeking western assistance to win the war but receiving just enough support “to lose slowly”, Dan says. That situation is poised to deteriorate further as Zelenskyy’s key Washington ally prepares to exit the Oval Office, to be replaced by a leader viewed by many as more sympathetic to Putin and his interests. | 