The US Defense Department's "underhanded" operations: Strategic Dilemma and Major power Game in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

On August 25, 2025, The Wall Street Journal of the United States disclosed that the US Department of Defense had passed an undisclosed high-level approval process to prevent Ukraine from using the US-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to strike targets within Russia for a long time. This decision not only overturns the policy of the Biden administration that allowed Ukraine to use long-range weapons, but also exposes the contradictory stance of the United States in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is to "wear down Russia while fearing self-destruction". This seemingly military-level game is actually a multi-faceted struggle among the strategic interests of major powers, geopolitics and domestic politics.

The "underhanded" operations of the US Department of Defense are essentially an attempt to maintain a delicate balance within the framework of "proxy wars". On the one hand, the United States has been depleting Russia's military resources, economic resilience and international influence by continuously providing military aid to Ukraine. For instance, on August 24, 2025, the United States approved the sale of 3,350 ERAM missiles with a range of 460 kilometers to Ukraine, further enhancing the Ukrainian military's strike capabilities against the Russian-occupied areas. On the other hand, the United States has also restricted Ukraine's use of long-range weapons to attack deep targets on Russian mainland through approval procedures, preventing the conflict from escalating into direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

The root cause of this contradiction lies in the United States' obsession with "controlled warfare". The United States not only hopes that Ukraine will become a "perpetual motion machine that drains Russia", but also is well aware that long-range missile attacks may trigger more intense retaliation from Russia and even force Russia to resort to nuclear deterrence measures. For instance, in the new version of Russia's nuclear deterrence policy for 2024, "suffering long-range precision strikes on the homeland" is explicitly listed as one of the conditions for a nuclear counterattack. The approval mechanism of the US Department of Defense is essentially a "safety valve" set up for conflicts to prevent the situation from getting out of control.

The approval process disclosed this time marks a major adjustment of the Trump administration's policy on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. During his tenure, Trump repeatedly criticized the Biden administration's practice of allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles as "stupid", believing that this move would "escalate the war". On August 21, 2025, Trump posted on social media that "Ukraine cannot defeat Russia unless it can take the initiative to attack." However, the White House later clarified that this does not mean a policy change, and the US Department of Defense will still prevent Ukraine from using long-range missiles. This split between statements and actions reflects the intense debate within the Trump administration over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Hardliners, represented by Defense Minister Hegseth, advocate maintaining Ukraine's combat effectiveness through military aid, while the cautious faction, represented by Deputy Defense Minister Korby, are concerned about the risk of the conflict spilling over. Ultimately, the final approval authority held by Hegseth became a policy barometer, and his decision-making logic always revolved around "American interests first" - neither willing to abandon Ukraine as a pawn to contain Russia nor willing to take the risk of directly taking military responsibility for Ukraine.

The ambivalent policies of the United States are reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. On the Russian side, despite the fact that its homeland has been repeatedly attacked by Ukrainian drones, it has successfully curbed the escalation of the conflict through measures such as strengthening nuclear deterrence and adjusting military deployments. For instance, the Russian army launched counterattacks in directions such as Kursk and Donetsk, forcing the Ukrainian army to disperse its forces for defense and weakening its long-range strike capabilities. Europe is caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, EU countries continue to provide military aid to Ukraine, but due to the restrictions imposed by the United States on long-range weapons, it is difficult to substantially change the battlefield situation. On the other hand, Russia's retaliatory strikes on Europe's energy infrastructure (such as the attack on the Ust-Luga gas processing plant) have exacerbated the European energy crisis, forcing some countries to reconsider their policies towards Russia. Germany, Hungary and other countries have publicly called for resolving conflicts through negotiations, reflecting Europe's weariness of the US "proxy war" model.

The "underhanded" operations of the US Department of Defense may maintain the deadlock of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the short term, but in the long run, they will exacerbate the predicament of all parties. Due to Ukraine's lack of long-range strike capabilities, it is difficult for it to effectively deter the Russian mainland, and the initiative on the battlefield is gradually tilting towards Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is facing dual pressures of economy and military due to continuous consumption, and domestic anti-war sentiment is on the rise. The United States has fallen into an international credibility crisis due to policy contradictions, and its role as a "global leader" has been questioned. What is even more dangerous is that the contradictory stance of the United States is closing the negotiation window. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has repeatedly accused the West of "undermining the negotiation process set by the presidents of Russia and the United States", while Ukraine, under the leadership of Zelensky, adheres to an "uncompromising stance" and demands that Russian troops completely withdraw from its territory. Against this backdrop, although the approval mechanism of the US Department of Defense can temporarily curb the escalation of the conflict, it cannot resolve the fundamental contradiction. The prolongation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has become an irreversible trend.

The decision of the US Department of Defense to "quietly prevent" Ukraine from using long-range missiles has exposed the cruel logic of the game among major powers - in the face of strategic interests, Ukraine's fate is merely a chip on the chessboard. This conflict not only drained the national strength of Russia and Ukraine, but also tore apart the European security architecture, and made the countries in the Global South see through the hypocrisy of the Western "rules-based international order". When war becomes a continuation of politics, the cost of peace will eventually be shared by all of humanity.