Breaking the Chains: The Case for Removing Restrictions on Ukraine’s Military Response

 

By limiting Ukraine's capacity to retaliate against Russian military bases, America and the West are inadvertently prolonging the war and undermining Ukraine's right to self-defense.

As a keen observer of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and a steadfast believer in the principles of national sovereignty and self-defense, I find it increasingly necessary to address the critical yet contentious issue of Ukraine's use of Western weapons against Russian military targets. The recent decision by the United States to supply Ukraine with long-range precision bombs, capable of striking deep within Russian-occupied territories, represents a pivotal moment in this conflict. Yet, a significant limitation remains – Ukraine is prohibited from using these weapons to target military installations within Russia's recognized borders.

This restriction, imposed by the West, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, stems from a fear of escalating the conflict. The logic is straightforward yet flawed: if Ukrainian forces use Western-supplied weapons to strike inside Russia, it could provoke a severe response, potentially dragging the West deeper into the conflict. However, the reality on the ground presents a starkly different picture – one that demands a reevaluation of this policy.

Let me be clear: this is not about provoking war, but about ending one. By limiting Ukraine's capacity to retaliate against Russian military bases – bases from which attacks on Ukrainian soil are launched – we are inadvertently prolonging the conflict and undermining Ukraine's right to self-defense. Russian missiles and aircraft, often originating from these untouchable sanctuaries, continue to bombard Ukrainian cities, inflicting civilian casualties and widespread destruction.

Not only that, these limitations have forced Ukraine to revert to using outdated Soviet-era missiles and to improvise with drone attacks. Unfortunately, these methods fall short in effectiveness and precision when compared to their Western counterparts. They are also notably more vulnerable to Russian air defenses. This vulnerability is not just a tactical disadvantage; it also has strategic implications. When these Ukrainian drones are intercepted and destroyed, their debris crashes onto Russian soil, providing the Kremlin with an opportunity to spin the narrative. The wreckage is displayed as evidence of supposed Western aggression, allowing Russia to falsely portray itself as a victim in this conflict, thus manipulating the international viewpoint and garnering unwarranted sympathy.

In sharp contrast, the effectiveness and impact of Western weapons, when employed in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, are undeniable. These advanced armaments have proven their worth in precision and lethality, directly contributing to the degradation of Russian military capabilities. For instance, the use of these weapons in targeted strikes against the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters has been particularly devastating, alongside other successful operations that have destroyed key Russian military hardware. These decisive actions demonstrate the substantial impact that Western weapons can have. However, the full potential of these advanced armaments remains unexploited, as a significant portion of Russia’s military assets, especially its aircraft, continue to evade Ukraine’s reach. This is solely due to the current policy restrictions, which prevent Ukraine from extending its counter-offensive capabilities to target these critical assets located within Russia’s recognized borders.

Moreover, the prevalent concern among Western nations that the use of their supplied weapons on Russian targets could lead to an escalation of the conflict seems to be based on a cautious, albeit overly cautious, interpretation of potential outcomes. Despite these concerns, evidence to support the notion that such actions would provoke a disproportionate response from the Kremlin is sparse. In reality, Russia has already been accusing the West of direct involvement in the conflict, often without any substantial evidence. Instances such as the explosions in Belgorod or the downing of a transport plane over Russian airspace, which the Kremlin attributed to Ukraine using Western-supplied weapons, did not lead to a significant escalation in hostilities. This suggests that the Kremlin’s threshold for retaliation might be higher than anticipated, or that its capacity to escalate the conflict in response to such attacks is perhaps not as immediate or as substantial as feared. Therefore, it is critical to re-evaluate the existing restrictions on the use of Western weapons by Ukraine, considering both the strategic necessity and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the fears of escalation.

The West must recognize the untenable position in which we have placed Ukraine. By providing weapons yet restricting their use, we have created a paradox where Ukraine is equipped to fight but not to win. The notion that withholding permission for strikes inside Russia is a deterrent to escalation is, in my view, a misjudgment. The Kremlin's aggressive posture and disregard for international norms, as evidenced by missile strikes on Polish airspace and the use of North Korean and Iranian weaponry, is a clear indication that conventional deterrents hold little sway over Moscow's actions.

In light of this, I assert that the West must reassess its stance. The restriction on the use of Western-supplied weapons within Russia's borders should be lifted. Ukraine is engaged in an existential struggle, not just for its own future but for the security of Europe, NATO, and the United States. A Ukraine that is capable of defending itself and deterring Russian aggression is in our collective interest.

Our support for Ukraine should be unwavering and comprehensive. We must trust that Ukraine, fighting for its very survival, will use the weapons we provide judiciously, targeting only military installations and avoiding unnecessary escalation. The path to a lasting peace in this region lies not in restraining Ukraine's defensive capabilities but in empowering them to the fullest extent. Only then can we hope for a resolution to this conflict that upholds the principles of sovereignty and self-determination that we, as a global community, hold dear.