ATACMS? What are they thinking?

Handcuffing an incoming President? Or even just giving him a worse situation to deal with? This was once unthinkable, but is the sort of churlishness one expects from this administration.

- GRANT NEWSHAM

It's perhaps appropriate IN that the Biden administration is finishing up with another foreign policy move that leaves one wondering "what could they possibly be thinking?" Team Biden's late-inthe-day authorization for Ukraine to use US-provided ATACMs mid-range missiles to attack targets inside Russia is the latestbut far from the first-head scratching move by the "adults in the room".

From a purely military perspective, these weapons are helpful—especially when you are allowed to use them against more targets.

But hitting targets inside Russia won't have a decisive effect on the Ukraine fighting either way.

In warfare, timing is everything. If Ukraine had been given ATACMs (and other weapons it requested) earlier, say, about nine months into the war when the Ukrainians had the Russian forces discombobulated, a clear-cut victory might have been possible. Or at least a negotiated settlement on very favorable terms.

However, Team Biden dithered and the window of opportunity closed on the Ukrainians, who in short order found themselves battering against Russian forces in fixed, defensive positions, and are now worrisomely stressed by Russian forces on the offensive-which presumably explains Team Biden's recent authorization to supply anti-personnel mines to Ukraine.

The administration hasn't explained its latest move regarding ATACMs in any useful way. So observers are left speculating. The two most common reasons offered are that Biden (or whoever is making the decisions) are: *Punishing Moscow for deploying North Korean troops onto the Ukrainian battlefield.