Removing the Handcuffs: The Case for Allowing Strikes on Russian Territory

 

Allowing Ukraine to target Russian territory with American weapons will disrupt Russian supply lines and troop gatherings, giving Ukraine a significant strategic advantage. The fear of escalation should not paralyze US policy; strengthening Ukraine’s offensive capabilities can serve as a powerful deterrent to further Russian aggression.

The debate surrounding the extent of Western support for Ukraine intensifies as the war drags on. Central to this discussion is the United States' restriction on Ukraine using American weapons to strike Russian territory. The truth remains that the US must allow Ukraine to use its weapons to strike Russia, even if it enrages President Vladimir Putin. President Biden must remove this unnecessary 'handcuff' from Ukraine if he truly wants them to defeat Russia.

Since the onset of the conflict, the US has barred Ukraine from using its arsenal of American weapons to target Russian territory. This restriction has significantly hampered Ukraine's ability to defend itself effectively. The New York Times reported on May 23, 2024, that US officials were debating rolling back this rule. The debate emerged after Russia placed weapons across the border from northeastern Ukraine, directing them at Kharkiv. Ukraine, under the current restrictions, could only respond with non-American drones.

The US's policy has remained stringent, despite its incremental increase in support for Ukraine over the course of the war. The Biden administration has provided more sophisticated weapons over time, yet it remains cautious about actions that could escalate the conflict to a direct confrontation with Russia. This caution stems from the fear of Russia's potential retaliatory measures, including the use of nuclear weapons.

Allowing Ukraine to use US weapons against Russian targets would provide a significant strategic advantage. Ukraine could strike troop gatherings, disrupt supply lines, and neutralize Russian planes carrying "glide bombs." This capability is crucial for Ukraine to repel Russian advances and reclaim occupied territories. Some of the US's allies, notably the UK, have already lifted similar restrictions. This precedent suggests that such a move is not unprecedented and could be manageable. The UK’s decision reflects a growing recognition among Western nations of the necessity to provide Ukraine with the tools needed for a decisive victory.

Despite fears of escalation, historical patterns show that Russia has not responded to Ukraine's aggressive actions, such as attacking the Crimea peninsula or launching drone strikes deep into Russian territory, with massive retaliatory attacks. Analysts have noted that the Kremlin appears keen to avoid a direct war with NATO allies. Therefore, the perceived red lines may not be as rigid as feared.

President Biden’s primary concern is that allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory could provoke Russia into attacking the US or its allies, potentially leading to a nuclear war. This fear is valid but must be weighed against the benefits of empowering Ukraine. History has shown that appeasement often leads to further aggression. By allowing Ukraine to strike back effectively, the US would send a strong message to Russia about the consequences of its actions. Strengthening Ukraine's offensive capabilities could serve as a deterrent, making Russia reconsider its aggressive posture.

US officials acknowledge that Putin's red lines are unclear. However, avoiding action based on uncertain threats undermines strategic decision-making. By lifting the restrictions, the US would assert its commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and resilience, signaling to Russia that the West will not be intimidated by ambiguous threats. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has criticized Western caution, arguing that support often arrives too late to make a substantial difference. In an interview with Reuters, Zelenskyy emphasized the need for a paradigm shift, advocating for proactive measures rather than reactive responses. His insights highlight the urgency of equipping Ukraine with the means to strike back effectively.

From a legal perspective, Ukraine has the right to self-defense under international law. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter allows for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. By restricting Ukraine's use of American weapons, the US is inadvertently undermining Ukraine's legitimate right to defend itself. Morally, the US and its allies have a responsibility to support Ukraine in its fight against aggression. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict; it is a struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Failing to fully support Ukraine risks emboldening other autocratic regimes worldwide, setting a dangerous precedent.

The US must reassess its current policy and lift the restrictions on Ukraine's use of American weapons to strike Russian territory. This strategic shift would provide Ukraine with the necessary tools to defend itself effectively, deter further Russian aggression, and uphold the principles of international law and moral responsibility. President Biden's administration has the opportunity to demonstrate unwavering support for Ukraine and send a clear message to Russia that its aggression will not go unchallenged.

The stakes are high, and the path forward is fraught with risks. However, inaction or half-measures could lead to a prolonged conflict with devastating consequences. The time for decisive action is now. Ukraine's fight is not just for its own survival but for the preservation of global democratic values. By removing this 'handcuff,' the US can help ensure that Ukraine emerges victorious in this critical battle.