elpais.com
US Bans Ukraine from Missile Strikes on Russia
The Pentagon banned Ukraine from using US-supplied missiles to strike Russian territory in 2025, reversing a Biden-era exception, prompting President Zelensky to declare Ukraine's intent to continue attacks without permission; this follows Ukraine's use of such missiles in 2024 and the recent development of its own long-range cruise missile.
- What are the immediate implications of the Pentagon's ban on Ukraine using its missiles to strike Russian soil?
- The Pentagon has banned Ukraine from using its missiles to strike Russian soil in 2025, reversing a previous exception granted by the Biden administration. This decision, confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, follows at least three Ukrainian attacks in 2024 using US and British-French missiles against military targets in Russian regions bordering Ukraine. President Zelensky has declared that Ukraine will not seek permission for such attacks, deeming them justified.
- What is the potential long-term impact of Ukraine's development of its own long-range cruise missile on the course of the war?
- Ukraine's commencement of its own domestically produced 3,000-kilometer range cruise missile, the Flamingo, signals a potential decrease in reliance on US-supplied weaponry for long-range attacks on Russian territory. This development could lead to further escalation of the conflict, potentially bypassing future US restrictions and escalating tensions with Russia. The success and capabilities of this new missile will likely shape the future trajectory of the conflict.
- How do the different approaches of the Biden and Trump administrations toward Ukrainian missile strikes on Russia reflect broader policy differences?
- The reversal of the missile strike authorization reflects a shift in US policy under President Trump, who favors reconciliation with Russia. This contrasts with the Biden administration's approach, which while authorizing limited strikes near the border, publicly regretted Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil infrastructure due to their impact on global oil prices. The decision highlights the differing approaches between the two administrations toward the war in Ukraine.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative strongly emphasizes the Ukrainian perspective and their justifications for attacking Russian territory. The headline, while not explicitly stated in the text provided, would likely emphasize Ukrainian defiance and actions, potentially shaping the reader's sympathy towards their cause. The repeated emphasis on Zelenski's statements and the description of Ukrainian actions as necessary or justified contributes to a framing favorable to Ukraine.
Language Bias
The article uses language that, while factually accurate, often favors the Ukrainian narrative. Phrases like "justice," "necessary," and "defiance" carry positive connotations, while actions by Russia are described using neutral or negative terms. For example, instead of 'conciliator' to describe Trump's approach to Putin, a more neutral term like 'collaborative' could be used. Describing Ukrainian attacks as 'bombardments' has a strong negative connotation; 'strikes' might be a more neutral alternative.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US's role and the Ukrainian president's perspective, potentially omitting other international actors' views on the conflict and the implications of Ukraine's actions. The motivations and perspectives of Russia are largely presented through the actions of its government, rather than detailed analysis of their reasoning. There is little exploration of the humanitarian consequences of the attacks on Russian infrastructure, or the potential for escalation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the conflict as a battle between Ukraine and Russia, with the US playing a supporting role. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of geopolitical alliances and the interests of other nations involved. The framing of the conflict as 'justice' versus 'provocation' is an oversimplification, ignoring the ethical and legal gray areas of warfare.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on the actions and statements of male political leaders (Zelenski, Trump, Biden, Putin, Orban). While it mentions the involvement of different countries, there is little to no mention of the role of women in the conflict, whether in political leadership, military roles, or civilian life. This lack of representation could be considered a form of bias by omission.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, marked by attacks on infrastructure and military targets. This escalates tensions and undermines peace and security, hindering efforts towards building strong institutions and resolving conflicts peacefully. The disagreements between the US and Ukraine regarding the scope of military actions further complicate efforts towards peace and stability.