Lawmakers from both parties generally support President Biden's decision to approve a major change in U.S. policy that would allow Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles to attack sites inside Russia.
The escalating move comes less than two weeks after President-elect Trump defeated Vice President Harris in the presidential election. The president-elect's most vocal supporters on Capitol Hill were less enthusiastic about supporting Ukraine, with Donald Trump Jr. suggesting Biden's decision could spark World War III.
But key figures in both parties believe a stronger U.S. policy is to support Ukraine's ability to attack Russia's Kremlin forces, especially now that North Korean troops are also arriving on the scene. said.
“It's time for us to do this and help Ukraine move forward.” [Russia] Come back and win,” said Rep. Saldo Carvajal (D-Calif.).
Republicans say the measure came too late.
“Better late than never, but it's late,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I've been pleading with the government for two years to cut back on all weapons systems and they finally approved it. … Let them use everything we gave them. Please stop putting restrictions on it.”
This policy change prompted the Russian government to lower standards for the use of nuclear weapons, renewing concerns that war could become more serious.
Russian President Vladimir Putin updated his nuclear doctrine on Tuesday, saying a conventional attack on Russia by a non-nuclear-weapon state would be considered a joint attack if supported by a nuclear-weapon state.
The Kremlin said Putin appeared to pose a serious threat to the United States and its Western allies, which could trigger a nuclear reaction.
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was not worried about a bolder strategy and accused Russia of accelerating the war by sending North Korean troops.
“The escalation is on the other side,” Meeks said, “so it's the right thing to do now to be able to go and take out those weapons and stop the indiscriminate shooting into Ukraine.” spoke.
But Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) took a more cautious stance.
“The administration should not take this as a sword-wielding thing,” he said. “They should take this very serious escalation in their nuclear threat posture as a very serious threat.”
Biden on Sunday authorized Ukraine to use the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) inside Russia, but the White House has not yet publicly confirmed the authorization.
ATACMS, which can strike targets up to 290 miles away, would give Ukraine a much-needed advantage and allow Kiev to attack critical ammunition depots and oncoming forces. Ukraine wants long-range missiles to reach Russia from at least 2022 and has stepped up its lobbying for that capability in the past few months.
On Tuesday, Ukraine used ATACMS for the first time in Russia, attacking an ammunition depot in Bryansk, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Such missile attacks could also be important in Kursk, where Russian and North Korean forces are working to dislodge Ukrainian forces that captured part of Russian territory in a surprise attack in August.
President Trump has said he will end the war by his inauguration on January 20th. The ATACMS policy will further increase Ukraine's influence in the anticipated negotiations, lawmakers said.
Because over the past year and a half, Russia has been attacking Ukrainian forces on the battlefield and gradually gaining territory in eastern Ukraine, even though the Russian army has also suffered heavy losses.
“In a month and a half we'll have a new president and Russia will probably sue for peace,” said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.). “So let them defend themselves and punch Russia back in the face.
“There is a light at the end of the tunnel for President Putin to save face. He is not going to start a nuclear war with all of Europe and the United States, knowing that in a month and a half there will be a new leader.”
But many of President Trump's biggest supporters on Capitol Hill, who have long called for an end to U.S. aid and war against Ukraine, are outraged by the changes to ATACMS.
Rep. Mike Walz (R-Fla.), Trump's nominee for national security adviser, said Monday on Fox News that this is “another rung up the escalation ladder.”
Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), who does not support adding security funding to Ukraine, said the ATACMS move is “a continued escalation in the wrong direction.”
“Biden is trying to do the same thing that Biden has done over the last four years, which is to destroy the country, destroy our position on the world stage, weaken us on every front in terms of negotiations, and undermine President Trump. “Now focus on your 'America First' agenda,” he said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.S.C.) said he supports lifting ATACMS restrictions because it could be a “diplomatic breakthrough,” but he also said Biden is “shallow” and would try to sabotage President Trump. They accused him of doing so.
“He's trying to put Trump in a box,” Graham said, adding, “It's strange that he decided to do this so soon after the election.” …I just think this is something he should have done to help Ukraine, but he's using it politically. And I think that's bullshit. ”
Rep. Nancy Mace (R.S.C.) said she was concerned about “a last-minute policy shift before President Trump comes along to help the situation.”
“I don't understand the sudden change in foreign policy on this issue. That concerns me,” she said. “We all want Ukraine to win, but Trump will be the new leader of the free world.”
Critics fear that President Trump will abandon territory in eastern Ukraine that has been occupied by Russia since its 2022 invasion. They also point to President Trump's close relationship with President Putin, with Trump reportedly calling the Russian leader seven times since leaving office.
But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) insisted that President Trump had no intention of “getting in Ukraine's way” in the negotiations.
“He's going to look to President Putin. He's met him, he's respected him, he's going to be tough with him, he's going to give him a choice: come to the table now or leave Ukraine alone. We're going to give them the choice of whether or not to support them.” in a way that prevents it from gaining any further benefits. That's implicit support. ”
Mike Lillis contributed.
