(09-23-2023, 05:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The U.S. being afraid of Russia "retaliating" for ATACMS used on Russian territory tells Russia its mainland is relatively safe if it attacks Ukraine. You want to end the war faster, wash this idea out of their head, and tell them you want the war to end more than you are afraid of escalation, by sending the weapons that can be used on Russian land. The fact the U.S. sends such weapons to Ukraine will send a "bring it on" message to Russia that it needs to hear.
OF, I have to disagree with you here. First of all, the US isn't (or wasn't) holding back ATACMS because we feared "retaliation". We have sent weapons to Ukraine that are doing plenty of damage to the Russian military. They are already "mad" at us. We have been holding back ATACMS because Biden explicitly said we would not give it to Ukraine. We feared that turning around and doing so would make us appear untrustworthy to both friends (who DO fear retaliation with good reason) and foe (Russia who would regard our strategic restraint as no longer reliable).
It is ALWAYS a bad idea to use a weapons system for "messaging". The usage of a weapons system has to be primarily based on it's military effect, not on how you expect the enemy to interpret it's use. The Germans in WW II firmly believed the British population would fold up in the face of the "Blitz". It didn't, it's resolve hardened. The British thought the German populace couldn't stand up to their night bombing campaign. It stood up just fine to the very end of the war. The US was sure the North Vietnamese government would get the "bring it on" message and end the war. The opposite happened. While it is necessary to evaluate and be aware of the possible "social and psychological" aspects of a given weapons system, deploying it primarily for these reasons is always a fools errand. Nobody has so far been successful in accurately predicting how the government and the people will react to the use of a given weapon. Even the nuclear bombing of Japan is still a matter of controversy regarding its role in Japan surrendering.
ATACMS is "good" only for what military effects it can have. Firing a few into Russian territory is generally pointless. We don't have enough such missiles to bring Russia to it's knees even if we gave Ukraine all we have (which we certainly do not intend to do). Ukraine has endured continuous missile attacks on a far greater scale than anything Ukraine can come even close to sending back towards Russia, yet they haven't folded. Russia probably won't either, and certainly not from ATACMS usage. However, quite a few of our European allies might, because many of them are very concerned about Russian retaliation against them (instead of us, because Russia isn't "afraid" of them). Obviously we know there are political forces at work in these NATO countries that are against helping Ukraine. There is a very real "messaging" issue there too.
Ukraine should get ATACMS, but only in so far as they have significant military targets whose destruction will contribute to forcing the Russian military to retreat right out of Ukraine. If Russia gives up before they are compelled to, fine, but we (and Ukraine) can't make decisions on that basis. If we do, we risk doing things that make no military sense, and that just helps the Russians.
This does bring up the "How does this end?" question, which realistically is a very tough one. We (and Ukraine) are counting on Russia giving up if they are driven out of all Ukrainian territory including Crimea. While the belief that the Russians would give up at that point is in many ways rational, we can't count on it. Hopefully the US military is making plans to equip Ukraine in such a way it can defeat the Russian missile attacks that might continue indefinitely. That kind of a "frozen conflict" is unfortunately possible. For some reason I have no confidence our "brain trust" is actually considering this scenario and our response to it.
