SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
Earlier today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited an ammunition plant in Scranton, Pa. The plant produces some of the most vital pieces of equipment for Ukraine's defense against Russia. Since the war began, the U.S. and its NATO allies have been slowly and incrementally providing military assistance to Ukraine. And in each step, the Biden administration has been cautious about both the weaponry and the training it supplied, hoping to prevent escalating the war that Russia started.
This has frustrated Ukrainian officials and its most ardent supporters in the U.S. The latest debate amid all of this? For months, the Ukrainians have been pressing for American long-range missiles with the ability to strike deep into Russia, a move that some officials fear could place the U.S. and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. NPR's Tom Bowman joins me now to talk about this. Hey, Tom.
TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Hey, Scott.
DETROW: So I want to get to all the context in a moment. But first, let's directly start with this latest question. Throughout the conflict, the Biden administration has been cautious in approving American-made missiles hitting targets deeper into Russia. Do we think that request is ultimately going to be approved?
BOWMAN: You know, it's really hard to say at this point, Scott. We keep hearing it's under discussion. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met almost two weeks ago with his British counterpart, Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And Blinken seemed to indicate it would happen. Let's listen.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
ANTONY BLINKEN: We have adjusted and adapted as needs have changed, as the battlefield has changed, and I have no doubt that we'll continue to do that.
BOWMAN: So, again, it sounds like they're moving in that direction. And, of course, President Biden later had a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and talked about allowing long-range weapons to be used. But it appears, again, there's still deliberations and no final decision. Now, Britain seems to be leaning forward on this issue because they see the recent move by Iran to provide hundreds of missiles to Russia - it really changed the debate. The Brits have long-range missiles, too. It's called the Storm Shadow. And the French, by the way, have their own, the SCALP. But here's the thing, Scott - they both have American-made components, and therefore would require U.S. approval.
DETROW: And even as, over the last few years, we have seen some of the initial hard-line warnings from Russia not play out - right? - if you do X, that we will consider it a grave threat; if you do Y, we'll consider it a grave threat - it's hard not to see this particular one as having some merit. We are talking about missiles partially American-made striking deep into Russia. And Putin has said that would be a move that would effectively mean Russia is now fighting NATO.
BOWMAN: No. That's absolutely right. And again, from the start, the U.S. has been slowly ramping up military support to Ukraine while always weighing how Russia would respond. Putin has hinted at using tactical nuclear weapons, which gets everyone's attention. These are real concerns. But Putin, again, has made similar threats after the U.S. allowed, you know, Patriot missiles, F-16s. So a lot of this people say is bluster. Now, the current issue is allowing what's called ATACMS, an acronym that - you know, military loves acronyms. It stands for Army Tactical Missile System. Get this - it can travel 190 miles.
Right now, the U.S. is allowing Ukraine only to use them in Crimea to strike Russian military targets, and they've been quite successful. Now, again, getting back to the British and the French long-range missiles, they can travel about 155 miles. So you can imagine the Ukrainians are pressing for that American weapon to use deep inside Russia, which can go, you know, farther.
DETROW: Yeah. Now, when you and I have had versions of this conversation with different points of - will the U.S. allow this weapon system or that weapon system to go to Ukraine? - you have at times pointed out that sometimes it was more of a symbolic conversation than something that was really central to the war. So I'm wondering with these missiles, how necessary are these long-range weapons for Ukraine and are there sufficient targets that they'd like to hit?
BOWMAN: You know, it kind of depends who you talk with. The Institute for the Study of War says there are some 250 targets. They could be attacked with these long-range U.S. weapons, everything from airfields to oil and weapons depots, armored vehicles. And these attacks could also hurt Russia's ability to launch glide bombs into Ukrainian cities. We've been seeing a lot of that. But some of the Pentagon will tell you that the Russians have moved a lot of this, even beyond the range of those longer-range U.S. missiles. And defense officials also say that Ukrainians have also used most of their long-range missiles hitting those Russian sites in Crimea. They don't have many left.
But then the question is, of course, why can't you just send them more? The U.S. has thousands of these missiles and want to hold them in case, let's say, the U.S. is faced with an adversary, you know, military action in the Pacific, Middle East or Europe. So, you know, and again, that's a question that's out there. Can you provide more? And we still don't have an answer to that.
DETROW: Let's say these get approved. Would it change the course of the war? Would it have a - make a big difference?
BOWMAN: Well, no. No one is saying that, but it clearly will continue to hurt Russia, its war machine. Some officials are saying to Ukraine, listen, you're doing a good job with your drones in attacks deep inside Russia. Scott, just last week, a swarm of Ukrainian drones hit a massive weapons depot 300 miles inside Russia, just west of Moscow, so talk about deep inside Russia. And this weapons depot had also - get this - had missiles supplied by North Korea. There's little doubt the U.S. intelligence helped in that targeting. And American officials are telling Ukraine these relatively inexpensive drones are doing a great job, so don't just look to our missiles. Also, officials want Ukraine to focus more on defensive measures in the eastern part of their country, where right now Russia continues to make inroads.
Of course, as we know, Ukraine pushed deep into the Kursk region of Russia. But what did that really achieve? U.S. officials are asking now. They're saying this privately. But finally, the U.S. has been pressing Ukraine to do a better job at recruiting younger Ukrainians for its military. Right now - get this- they're not recruiting any soldiers under the age of 25. But the U.S. military, about 87% of their new recruits are between 18 and 24 years old.
DETROW: Right. So Tom, let's back up here for a moment. We're coming up on the third anniversary of the war, at least the expansion of the war. Russia had already effectively invaded Crimea years before that. What is the path forward? - because in many ways, it's a stalemate, and there are big questions about what U.S. support looks like depending on who's elected president.
BOWMAN: Well, the big thing is, how do you define winning? Or as General David Petraeus famously said during the Iraq War, tell me how this ends. It's kind of the same thing here. U.S. military officials have said neither side can win. Russia can't take over all of Ukraine, and Ukraine, they don't have the power to push all Russian forces out of their country. So what's the way ahead? No one really answers that question. And neither side, Ukraine or Russia, at this point seems intent on negotiations. And here at home, you know, Trump, of course, has been skeptical of spending more on Ukraine. And Kamala Harris has said the U.S. must keep supporting Ukraine. So I think next year, the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you'll see more pressure for some type of negotiation or at least talks, regardless of who's in the White House.
DETROW: That's NPR's Tom Bowman. Thanks for coming in, Tom.
BOWMAN: You're welcome.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
