Donald Trump is opposed to Ukraine firing long-range missiles at Russia, but the best way to achieve peace is through strength

Samuel Ramani

12 December 2024

President-elect Donald Trump has stridently condemned Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles against Russian targets. In the interview that accompanied his selection as Time magazine Person of the Year, he declared “I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?”

Trump’s objections to Ukrainian Atacm strikes mirror the views of his allies in Congress and foreign policy advisors. Utah senator Mike Lee warned that President Joe Biden’s Atacm greenlight would set the stage for World War III, while former US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell claimed that Biden was “launching a whole new war”. With Trump determined to achieve a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, he appears to want to close the door on pretexts that Russia might use to avoid partaking in talks. 

While Trump’s opposition to Atacm use is wholly expected, it also has pitfalls. As Britain and France have approved long-range missile strikes on Russian targets, Trump’s stance weakens the cogency of the intra-Nato military cooperation in the Ukraine war. 

Even more concerningly, his statement plays into Russia’s strategy of using apocalyptic threats as a tool of deterrence. Last week, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov told CNN that Russia was prepared to use “even stronger military means” than Oreshnik hypersonic missiles in Ukraine. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov repeated the same refrain in his interview with Right-wing media personality Tucker Carlson. 

The Kremlin wants us to believe that its willingness to escalate exceeds the West’s and hopes that we will blink first. We must not fall into this time-tested Russian trap. Adhering to the principle of “peace through strength” is the most effective way to call Moscow’s bluff and achieve a just peace in Ukraine. 

The case for a “peace through strength” approach to Russian aggression in Ukraine is bolstered by the repeated folding of Russia’s red lines. In July 2022, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev threatened Ukraine with a “judgment day” if it dared to strike Russian-occupied Crimea. Ukraine exposed Medvedev’s bluster with the October 2022 Kerch Bridge explosion and devastating attacks on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. These attacks hindered Russia’s ability to sabotage Ukrainian agricultural exports, forced key Russian vessels to dock into Novorossiysk, and saved countless civilian lives in Odesa and Mykolaiv. 

While Ukraine’s Atacm strikes against Russian territory have not had such a seismic impact, they still have the potential to inflict serious damage on Russia’s capabilities. As uncertainties about future US military assistance compound Russia’s ammunition and artillery shell supply chain advantage, Atacm strikes on weapons depots in border regions like Bryansk have strategic value. Ukraine’s attacks on the Kursk airfield in late Novembercould slow the recapture of the partially occupied Russian region, allowing Kyiv to use Kursk as a territorial bargaining chip in peace negotiations. 

The possibility of his forces facing Atacm strikes might also make North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un think twice about further troop deployments to Kursk. At this critical juncture, Ukraine urgently needs to dilute Russia’s manpower and war materiel advantages. This imperative makes Atacms an integral tool at Ukraine’s disposal. 

Russia’s meek capitulation in the face of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rapid-fire offensive against Bashar al-Assad should also encourage the West to stay strong. 

After Assad faced opprobrium for his alleged role in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafic Hariri, Syria became the cornerstone of Russia’s Middle East strategy. Russia’s naval base in Tartus has been an integral logistical hub for its military operations in Africa and symbol of its great power status in the Mediterranean. 

Russia’s decisive military intervention on Assad’s behalf in 2015 bolstered public pride in Russian military power and enhanced its standing as a counterweight to US influence in the developing world. Moreover, it showcased Russia’s loyalty to allies in crisis and gave it a triumph in its global struggle against liberal democracy. 

In less than two weeks, Vladimir Putin surrendered Russia’s Middle East foothold, risked key logistical facilities, and sacrificed a key component of his foreign policy legacy. Aside from imprecise air strikes on civilian targets, Russia did not even put up a meaningful fight. This is a clear reminder of the limitations of Russia’s material capabilities and exemplifies that the Kremlin does not have the bite to match its bark. 

Trump’s plan to end the wars that have destroyed countless lives in Ukraine and the Middle East is a laudable one. “Peace through strength” is the most effective way to make it a reality.