Will Ukraine's allies allow their weapons to be used for strikes on Russian territory?
The Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region and daily attacks on Kharkiv have raised the question of lifting restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western weapons to strike Russian territory.
Our authorities complain that they cannot prevent constant shelling because of the ban to use of long-range weapons from our partners against the occupiers' military targets outside Ukraine, while they do not have enough forces to counteract it.
That is, when the enemy advances from the temporarily occupied areas, it can be deterred by comprehensive solutions with the help of our allies; but from its own territory, Russia is much less vulnerable, and it is now actively using this.
Several NATO countries allowed Ukraine to use its weapons. However, the United States, the main supplier of long-range weapons, still refuses to lift the restriction.
Why the US is hesitating, whether we should hope for a change in Washington's position, and how strikes across the border can change the war – read in the article.
Why are strikes against Russia critical to Ukraine's defense?
During the spring offensive in the Kharkiv region, the aggressor country is attacking us almost unhindered from its territory and has already destroyed the border town of Vovchansk with guided aerial bombs. It seems that almost the entire list of Russian missiles is attacking Ukraine, except for missiles with nuclear warheads.
Under such conditions, the Armed Forces resemble a boxer who has entered the ring with his hands tied. The entire territory of our country is within the range of Russian missiles and drones, and frontline and border cities are suffering from incessant attacks by guided bombs and artillery.
Despite the fact that Ukraine receives effective Western weapons from its North Atlantic Alliance partners, the Russian military and political leadership knows for sure that our response to the shelling will be limited.
At the same time, Russia's allies, who also supply it with long-range weapons, do not put forward any requirements on how to use them. That is why Iranian Shahed drones are destroying Ukrainian infrastructure from Sumy to Lviv, and North Korean ballistic missiles are striking Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Zaporizhzhia.
Ukraine's defense forces, on the other hand, are forced to use only drones of their own production to hit targets in Russia. Indeed, our drones regularly strike oil refineries that supply fuel to the Russian army, military-industrial complex enterprises that produce weapons, and airfields from which Russian fighter jets and bombers take off to attack Ukraine.
However, it is impossible to destroy strategically important facilities in Russia using drones alone. To inflict irreparable damage on the enemy, it is necessary to use more forces and means, carrying out combined attacks with drones and missiles.
It is worth noting that Ukraine is successfully coping with this task when it comes to strikes on Russian military targets in the occupied territories, from the Luhansk region to Crimea. While Ukraine's long-range drones distract and deplete Russian air defenses, British and French Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles, as well as American ATACMS ballistic missiles, destroy strategic targets hundreds of kilometers from the front line. While Ukraine began receiving ATACMS missiles, which can hit targets at a distance of 300 kilometers, from the United States only this year, Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles have been hitting the occupiers for more than a year.
Ukraine has repeatedly used British and French missiles to hit Russian warships and even a submarine in occupied Crimea. Among the targets hit were the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, oil depots and command posts in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.
Now, Russian air defense systems are facing difficulties as a result of attacks by U.S. ATACMS ballistic missiles, which destroy aircraft at airfields in Ukrainian cities occupied by Russia. Moreover, ATACMS has repeatedly hit Russian S-300 and S-400 missile defense systems, which are supposed to protect the occupiers from such missiles.
As the United States began supplying the Ukrainian Armed Forces with long-range missiles, there was no place left in the occupied territories where the invaders could feel safe. Thanks to ATACMS, airfields, command posts, concentrations of manpower and equipment, oil depots, ammunition depots, and logistics hubs are now in the target area. This makes it much more difficult for the Russians to prepare offensive actions when it comes to operations from Ukrainian territory.
The West's strategic mistake gives Russia an advantage
However, when it comes to an offensive from Russian territory, the situation is much worse. This spring, the aggressor country managed to amass equipment and manpower almost unimpeded for a large-scale offensive in the Kharkiv region that began on May 10.
The US Institute for the Study of War believes that Western restrictions have allowed the Russians to create a safe foothold from which Russian aircraft can launch guided bombs and missiles at Ukrainian positions. Ground troops and equipment can also move freely along the border before the start of hostilities.
Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksandr Lytvynenko said in an interview with AFP that more than 30,000 Russian troops are advancing on the north of Kharkiv region. In total, Russia has concentrated about 50,000 soldiers on the border with the Kharkiv region.
Knowing that Ukraine can only use its own drones to strike at Russian territory, the enemy can maneuver, deploy firepower and train personnel at training grounds in close proximity to the state border, Ukrainian military expert Ihor Kozii explained to hromadske.
Without preemptive strikes on logistics hubs and concentration of enemy troops, it is not easy to stop any large-scale offensive from Russian territory. The occupiers have an advantage that allows them to firmly hold the initiative on the battlefield. For example, Russian planes carry out strikes with anti-aircraft gunships without even entering the airspace of our country. Ukraine is currently unable to counter this because of restrictions that make no sense from a military point of view.Ihor Kozii, military expert
According to Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umierov, since the beginning of 2024, Russian aviation has launched nearly 10,000 guided bombs at Ukraine, which can fly tens of kilometers to a target.
Civilian facilities are often targeted by the guided bombs. Reacting to the attack on the Kharkiv Epicenter hypermarket, Umierov emphasized that this is how Russia deliberately kills civilians.
The enemy's attack on the construction hypermarket of the heroic city of Kharkiv in broad daylight is nothing more than another act of genocide of the Ukrainian people by the Putin regime.Rustem Umierov, Minister of Defense of Ukraine
The warplanes that bombed the Kharkiv hypermarket probably took off from the Baltimore airfield in the Voronezh region of Russia, which is 50 kilometers closer to Ukrainian-controlled territory than the Belbek military airfield in occupied Crimea, which was recently successfully attacked with ATACMS missiles. An airfield in the border region of Russia might be an easier target for our Armed Forces, but we cannot hit it with Western weapons.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba also emphasized the need to “unblock” weapons for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, noting during a joint briefing in Kyiv with German Foreign Minister Annalena Burbock that “death and destruction” come to us from the territory of Russia.
The change in the rhetoric of the Ukrainian government, which has not openly asked the West for a change in the rules, is supported by political commentator Vitalii Portnikov in his video blog post. According to him, the prohibition of the United States and other NATO countries to use their weapons to strike at Russian territory is a strategic mistake that leads to irreparable consequences.
There is a certain political schizophrenia that is perceived both in Russia and in the West. Politicians in NATO countries are completely calm about strikes on the occupied territories, although from the point of view of Russian constitutional law, these regions of Ukraine are just as much a part of Russia.Vitalii Portnikov, political journalist
Military expert Ihor Kozii warns in his commentary to hromadske: until the approach to the use of partner weapons changes, nothing will prevent Russia from preparing and launching an offensive against other regions of Ukraine — the Kharkiv region may not be the last on this list.
On May 26, Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that the aggressor country was amassing another offensive group of troops on Ukraine's northern border. The President reminded that Russia is constantly trying to expand the war, so it takes advantage of any weakness in our defense.
Why are key geopolitical players against it?
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz believes that strikes by Western weapons on Russian territory would have significant geopolitical consequences. Like U.S. President Joe Biden, Scholz has consistently believed that the current ban “prevents the conflict from escalating into a major war”.
The risk of escalation — especially the possibility of a Russian attack on NATO member states — is a serious concern in the West. This is influenced by Vladimir Putin's repeated use of nuclear threats, even though many in Ukraine no longer take them seriously. This rhetorical tool is a significant hindrance to Ukraine, Vitalii Portnikov complains.
Fear of escalation is a commodity that Russia trades in to prevent the destruction of its own military capabilities. The logic of any war of attrition is that both sides are exhausted. If Ukraine does not hit Russia with Western weapons, Russia will be able to fight indefinitely.Vitalii Portnikov, political journalist
The West's indecision has already cost Ukraine dearly. For example, in less than six months of 2024, Russia occupied more of our territories than the Defense Forces managed to liberate in the entire year of 2023.
Ukrainian officials have repeatedly publicly appealed to the US presidential administration to authorize the use of American weapons to strike Russian territory.
In an interview with the New York Times, Volodymyr Zelenskyy reiterated his call for the leader of the United States to allow the use of American weapons to counter Russians across the border. The President of Ukraine is confident that this will not mean NATO's direct involvement in the war.
In the same interview, Zelenskyy shared his opinion that the West's indecision is, in part, due to a desire to maintain trade and diplomatic ties with Russia and “keep the door half open” in case Ukraine loses the war.
Military expert Ihor Kozii shares the Ukrainian leader's opinion. In a conversation with hromadske, he noted that he sees no political will on the part of the Biden administration to change the approach, although such changes are long overdue, logical, and obvious.
As long as Joe Biden is president of the United States, Ukraine will not be allowed to use American weapons against Russia. It is not known whether the US position will change if he loses the election this fall, but I do not see any chance of getting a positive decision for us under his administration. Therefore, Ukraine should increase production of its own long-range weapons.Ihor Kozii, military expert
Ukraine has already destroyed military targets in Russia with American weapons. Will there be a continuation?
Nevertheless, there is still a discussion about easing the ban, both in America and among our European allies. The position of supporters of authorizing such strikes is gaining ground even within the US government. After his visit to Kyiv in May, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken publicly called for lifting restrictions on Ukraine's ability to strike Russian territory with American weapons. The position of the head of the State Department changed when the Russians opened a new front in the Kharkiv region, the New York Times writes.
Then the Russians deployed weapons right on the border and aimed them at Kharkiv, knowing that the Ukrainians would only be able to use their own drones and other short-range weapons in response. This created the conditions under which the aggressor has a firepower advantage that supports the ground offensive.
Of course, Ukraine does have its own drones, but they lack the power and speed of American weapons. Moreover, the Russians use advanced electronic warfare methods against drones on the front line.
The pressure on the US administration is growing every day. Last week, Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, assured CBS News that Ukraine is doing everything possible to convince the White House to change its position.
International law and all other rules, which, by the way, Russia has violated, give us the right to strike the aggressor — both on our territory and where the invaders start their attacks against Ukraine. We have been having this discussion for two years now.Oksana Markarova, Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States
Changes in the rules of the game in favor of Ukraine are also defended by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian. In an interview with the Economist, he argued that the time has come for the Alliance to allow Ukraine to use Western-made weapons to hit targets in Russia.
Recently, a number of other high-ranking officials in the United States have publicly expressed their support for Ukraine in this matter. For example, a dozen congressmen from the Democratic and Republican parties signed an open letter to the US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. However, the Pentagon chief himself has not yet shown any intention of changing his position. At least at the level of public statements.
We expect the Ukrainians to use the weapons they have been given to strike only targets inside Ukraine. However, the approach to air targets may be different.Lloyd Austin, U.S. Secretary of Defense
The exception to destroy targets in Russian airspace mentioned by the Pentagon chief already has a precedent. In May 2023, the Patriot air defense system destroyed two Russian Su-34 and Su-35 aircraft, as well as three helicopters in the skies over the Bryansk region of Russia. This was confirmed in November by the then spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, Yurii Ihnat. However, the US government did not comment on this at the time.
As for lifting the ban on ground strikes, the U.S. position may still change, as more and more influential officials are defending Ukraine's needs. For example, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, who until recently did not support the law on military assistance to Ukraine, has joined them.
Ukraine should be allowed to wage war as it sees fit. Ukrainians should be able to fight back. I don't think it's right for us to micromanage that effort.Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives
So will Ukraine get the opportunity to attack Russia with Western weapons?
Despite the principled position of Germany and the United States, we cannot talk about a ban from the entire North Atlantic Alliance, as some NATO member states have already allowed Ukraine to strike Russia with weapons produced by them. So, in general, the dynamics of support among Western allies is positive, although not as rapid as Kyiv would like.
Among the positive developments is the United Kingdom, which usually shares military strategy with the United States. For example, London has authorized the Ukrainian Armed Forces to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles with a 250-kilometer range. This was announced by Foreign Secretary David Cameron during his visit to Kyiv. According to Cameron, Ukrainians “have every right to decide” how to use the weapons provided to them to defend their country.
However, so far, Ukraine has not launched any strikes with British missiles on Russian territory, although the head of the British Foreign Office made this sensational statement almost a month ago.
Roman Bezsmertnyi, a Ukrainian diplomat and PhD in political science, suggested in his video blog post that before using long-range Western-made weapons, Ukraine should carefully prepare for a devastating response from Russia — and strengthen its own air defense system. This is where the main efforts of the Ukrainian government and its Western partners are currently focused.
The United Kingdom is not the only European country that has officially authorized Ukraine to use its weapons to strike Russian territory. In February of this year, Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said that Ukraine could use Finnish weapons provided to it to attack Russian territory. Similar statements were made by representatives of Lithuania and the Czech Republic.
Unfortunately, none of these countries provide us with long-range systems, so this permission will not fundamentally change the situation on the battlefield. However, it is an important element of diplomatic pressure on the rest of the allies and a demonstration that lifting restrictions does not lead to an escalation toward NATO.
Sweden has become the latest North Atlantic Treaty Organization country to allow Kyiv to use its weapons on Russian territory. According to Defense Minister Paul Johnson, Ukraine can defend itself with all available means “on the enemy's territory” if it complies with the laws and customs of war.
Ukraine is armed with Swedish CV90 infantry fighting vehicles, TOW anti-tank missile systems, Robot 70 man-portable air defense systems with a range of up to 9 kilometers, and Archer self-propelled artillery systems capable of striking at a distance of 30 kilometers with a conventional 155-mm shell and 60 kilometers with an Excalibur precision-guided missile.
But the United States is the largest supplier and manufacturer of long-range weapons. If President Biden does not change his position, Ukraine will not be able to defend itself by striking Russian territory with long-range ATACMS missiles with a range of 165 to 300 kilometers. In addition, the use of a set of weapons, such as the American F-16 fighter jets, which Ukraine has not yet received, will likely be banned.
The U.S. president's position seems unwavering at the moment, but the U.S. government was just as afraid to provide Ukraine with tanks, aircraft, and even long-range missiles. So, one day, a change in public opinion in the United States and pressure on congressmen there may even break through the doors of the Oval Office.
- Share: