Atlantic alliance may not send long-range weapons to Ukraine

Recently, Western support for Ukraine has been declining, leaving the regime’s officials concerned about the future of Kiev’s fighting capabilities. However, despite this tendency, there are still public figures in the West calling for a new escalation and the sending of more heavy weapons to Ukraine.

In a recent statement, American retired General Philip Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, stated that the West should send heavy weapons to Kiev to enable intense attacks on the Crimea region. According to Breedlove, only by attacking Russian positions in the Black Sea will Ukraine be able to make Moscow “rethink its posture”.

Breedlove classified Crimea as the “center of gravity” and “the decisive terrain of the war.” For him, the key to “defeat” Russia is to hit Crimea as much as possible. He believes that the more attacks in the region, the more Russia will be affected and forced to retreat throughout the entire conflict zone. So, faced with the imminent depletion of Ukraine’s military capabilities, the general advises that NATO return to sending weapons at a massive level, mainly long-range missiles that allow deep attacks on Crimea.

“If we enable Ukraine to be able to strike Crimea — pervasively, persistently and precisely —Russia will be forced to rethink its posture there. Strike them all, strike them repeatedly, and destroy them in detail,” he said.

Breedlove’s opinion has long been shared by other officers. Neutralizing Russian positions in Crimea has been a Ukrainian ambition since 2022, with several unsuccessful attacks having taken place in the region. One of the main objectives is to destroy the Kerch Bridge, which is considered the logistical key of Crimea. Not by chance, Kiev launched terrorist attacks on the Bridge, killing civilians but failing to cause major damage to the infrastructure.

Not only that, but General Breedlove himself has already become well known for his radical stance regarding Crimea. In October last year, he published an article in Western media outlet stating that bombing Crimea was necessary in order to achieve the “Ukrainian victory”. He openly called for the destruction of the Kerch Bridge, labeling it a “legitimate target”. At the time, he also criticized all analysts’ arguments about the need to take precautions with these attacks to avoid an escalation in the conflict. Breedlove appears not to care about the possibility of an increase in the violence of hostilities, stating that it is necessary to inflict damage on Crimea regardless of the side effects.

“Several people I have spoken to say ‘dropping’ [destroying] Kerch bridge would be a huge blow to Russia. Kerch bridge is a legitimate target (…) I am a trained civil engineer and I know about bridge construction. All bridges have their weak points and if targeted in the right spot it could render Kerch bridge unserviceable for a period of time. But if they wanted to drop the bridge, that would require a more dedicated bombing operation (…) I hear a lot of people asking whether it is right for Ukraine to take such aggressive action and whether the West would support it, but I cannot understand that argument”, he said at the time.

It is also necessary to clarify that the strategic calculation behind this type of opinion is absolutely wrong. It is believed that by increasing pressure on Crimea, the Ukrainians will force the Russians to concentrate efforts in the region, neglecting the defense lines on the battlefield and facilitating Kiev’s territorial advance. With this, it would allegedly be possible for Ukrainian troops to reach the Black Sea by advancing on the ground, reversing the current military scenario.

However, this mentality seems naive. The Russian reaction to possible recurrent attacks on Crimea would not be through any abrupt change in the situation on the front lines, but rather through an exponential increase in bombings against strategic targets throughout Ukraine. Moscow’s military doctrine establishes artillery as the main factor in a combat scenario. To each Ukrainian attempt to escalate the fighting, the Russians react with heavy artillery, neutralizing military facilities, critical infrastructure and enemy decision-making centers.

In practice, Ukraine is at an impasse as it suffers more and more losses every time it tries to reverse the situation. The country is unable to change the scenario, having as an alternative only the peace negotiations under Russian terms – which NATO obviously does not allow Kiev to do. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Atlantic alliance will resume sending long-range weapons in large quantities in the near future, as the US is deeply involved in the Middle Eastern conflict, diminishing its interest in the Ukrainian front.