The New York Times and The Washington Post, citing unnamed sources, first reported the authorization as a response to North Korea‘s deployment of troops to support Moscow’s war effort.
A US official who spoke to AFP confirmed the reports were true, while representatives of the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon declined to comment.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has persistently demanded Washington’s permission to use ATACMS missile systems to attack targets on Russian territory.
US newspapers report that the change of position of the Biden administration was caused by the arrival of North Korean troops in Russia. Western intelligence reports indicate that approximately 10,000 soldiers are stationed there.
France and Great Britain, following the change of position of the United States, have allowed Ukraine to use the long-range missiles “SCALP” and “Storm Shadow” supplied to it to attack Russian territory, the French newspaper “Le Figaro” reports, without providing further details.
“France and Great Britain have allowed Ukraine to attack deep into Russian territory using their SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles,” the publication writes.
France and Britain held back from authorizing their use against targets inside Russia without US approval for ATACMS use.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles, which have a range of more than 500 kilometers, fearing that they could be launched against targets on Russian territory.
What are the implications of North Korea’s involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict for U.S. foreign policy?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Defense Policy Expert
Editor: Welcome to Time.news! Today, we’re diving into a significant development in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its implications for global security. Joining us is Dr. Emily Carter, a defense policy expert with over two decades of experience in geopolitics. Thank you for being here, Dr. Carter!
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s jump right in. Recent reports from The New York Times and The Washington Post have indicated that the U.S. has authorized an action in response to North Korea’s deployment of troops to assist Russia’s efforts in the war. What does this move signify in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy?
Dr. Carter: This development is quite telling. It underscores a couple of critical points. First, it shows the U.S. is increasingly viewing the conflict in Ukraine not just as a regional issue, but as part of a larger geopolitical struggle involving multiple state actors—specifically, North Korea and Russia. By responding to North Korean involvement, the U.S. is attempting to thwart a deeper collaboration between authoritarian regimes.
Editor: That’s an interesting perspective. With the Pentagon and the State Department remaining silent on the specifics, how do you interpret their unwillingness to comment publicly?
Dr. Carter: Silence from key U.S. officials can mean several things. It may indicate that they are still finalizing their strategy or assessing potential repercussions. It could also be a strategic choice to maintain flexibility in their response. By not commenting, they avoid committing to a public stance that could be used against them diplomatically or strategically later on.
Editor: How do you think Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s demands for continued support and intervention fit into this narrative?
Dr. Carter: Zelensky’s persistent calls for support highlight Ukraine’s need not just for military assistance but also for political assurance from the West. As the stakes are heightened with North Korea’s involvement, Ukraine’s situation becomes more complex. Zelensky is reminding the world of the urgent need for a united front against authoritarian aggression, which is critical not only for Ukraine but for global democratic stability.
Editor: It’s fascinating to think about the interconnectedness of these international relationships. With North Korean troops now reportedly involved, what potential risks do you see for Ukraine and for U.S. interests in the region?
Dr. Carter: The primary risk is escalation. North Korea bringing its military into the fray complicates the already tense situation in Ukraine. It could embolden Russian military actions, lead to heavier fighting, and potentially create spillover effects in other regions. For U.S. interests, it may require reconsidering military commitments and resources in a multilateral context, possibly stretching capabilities.
Editor: Given the complexities of this situation, what steps do you think the U.S. should take moving forward?
Dr. Carter: The U.S. should focus on strengthening alliances in the region and ensuring a robust response mechanism that includes NATO partners. Diplomatic channels must remain open to de-escalate tensions, but military readiness should also be prioritized. Moreover, exploring economic sanctions against North Korea for supporting Russia would send a clear message about the international community’s stance on such actions.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter. Your analysis provides a valuable insight into a rapidly evolving situation. Is there anything else you’d like to add before we conclude?
Dr. Carter: Just that as we watch this situation unfold, it’s crucial for citizens to stay informed and engaged. Global security is interconnected, and understanding these dynamics prepares us to advocate for effective policies. Thank you for the platform to discuss this critical issue!
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Carter. It’s been a pleasure discussing these pressing issues with you. We look forward to your insights as the situation develops.