When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

Welcome to The Adversarial. Every other week, we’ll provide you with expert analysis on America’s greatest challengers: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and jihadists. Read more below.***RussiaThere is intense focus on whether the United States will allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory, in particular through the use of advanced weapon systems like the U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems or European long-range missiles that contain U.S. content. President Vladimir Putin has said that the use of such systems would require direct Western involvement and therefore would equate to NATO entering the war. Ukraine and its backers dismiss this as bluster, while the United States appears more cautious, perhaps nervous about Russia’s ability to escalate horizontally, such as through more direct kinetic hybrid attacks. There was expectation that an announcement might be made following U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington last week but no announcement has been forthcoming. However, in the past, when the U.S. has provided Ukraine with a new weapon system, it has done so rather quietly. The disclosure that Russia has received ballistic missiles from Iran, as well as China’s support to the “Russian war machine,” as highlighted by Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, could provide a clear predicate for the United States.Less discussed is whether any of this would make a difference on the battlefield. Ukraine has a very limited supply of these weapons systems and has plenty of targets to shoot at on Ukrainian soil. Russia has also moved aircraft and other prime targets further back outside of the range of Army Tactical Missile Systems, meaning that it’s unclear and frankly unlikely that this will have a huge battlefield impact. On the other hand, Ukraine has just demonstrated the impact that its drone production can have on Russia, with a clearly successful