The conflict in Ukraine has been a ground for testing military strategies, not solely the resilience of Ukrainian forces, but also the determination of the United States and its European allies. Since then, the manner in which support for Ukraine is carried on has been transforming, with such transformation having the potential to affect European security for a long time.
The major change that has come about is that Washington is willing to concede more freedom to Kyiv for the use of long-range missiles. The Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), for instance, which was once only used in the most extreme situations, is now being employed to carry out deep strikes in the territory of Russia. This is a definite departure from the past, when the use of missiles was limited due to the caution that surrounded the issue of escalation.
Ukrainian forces have targeted the supply depots, airports, and troop concentrations that are far behind the front lines. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has characterized these attacks to be more effective instruments of influence than negotiations alone. The timing, that is, just before Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, may imply that the U.S. wanted to firm up its support before any policy changes took place.
ATACMS missiles (almost reaching a distance of 200 miles) have already visibly impacted the battlefield. Key Russian resources have been moved to the rear as a result of these missiles, which has made logistics and air support more complicated. Such missiles are indeed few in numbers; however, their tactical and psychological effects are notable. A senior U.S. defense official summed up the situation by stating that their mere presence in Ukraine is enough to make the war more costly for Moscow. The U.K. has also contributed by authorizing the use of Cruise missiles, such as the Storm Shadow, which are yet another factor that can be used to counteract Russian operations.
Would Western fighter aircraft produce similar effects? The planned F-16s for Ukraine are not only that: they signify a closer connection to NATO systems. Through these planes, the Russians’ air dominance could be neutralized and bombings carried out on high-value targets. Whether or not they will be efficient is, however, based on delivery schedules, ordnance, and how fast Ukrainian pilots and ground crews will be trained. While the doctrine amendments have a temporal effect, in the long run, these jets could fill the gap in Ukraine’s air force and give deterrence more power.
However, there are still some doubts. If Trump is reinstated, it is feared that the US aid to Ukraine might be cut or reduced. Ukraine is significantly dependent on American arms, ammunition, and high-tech systems, from rocket artillery and howitzers to air defenses and intelligence platforms.
If there were a decrease in US aid to Ukraine, European allies might be required to intervene, although the issues of production and logistics would remain. While Europe is capable of providing ground forces with artillery and air defense systems, it is devoid of the industrial scale and satellite intelligence capabilities that would make the US suitable for such a task. The domestic defense industry of Ukraine might be a solution for the long term, but that will not be for the next few years.
In the short term, the Europeans could either take on the risk of increased financial and operational risk, or they may choose to buy US equipment for Ukraine if they are authorized to do so. What complicates all this is the incessant danger of escalation, where the Russians threaten to go for big retaliation if the Western armaments cross their borders.
Until now, most of these threats have been just words. The West has skillfully dealt with Russian “red lines” while still supporting Ukraine without flirting with the possibility of confrontation. There is still a chance that something may go wrong, but the warnings from Russia seem to be more about cautioning than convincing the West to stop.
Equally important is the fighting on the information front. The Russian disinformation campaign, which can be likened to a “firehose of lies,” has the purpose of breaking the unity of the West and making the public that supports Ukraine less loyal. The lies are told across Europe, the U.S., and beyond, and they are helped along by conspiracy theories and ideological differences. Western countries have reacted by sharing intelligence before the event and doing official campaigns that provide the truth. Taking control of the story has become as necessary as giving weapons.
Ukrainians need as much legitimacy for the rapid adoption of new capabilities as for the receipt of hardware. For the Western world, the supreme test is unity and trustworthiness under fire. Not only will today’s choices dictate the immediate direction of the conflict, but they will also determine the future of European security for the next generation.