Common Sense and Self-Defense: U.S. Supports Ukraine’s Right to Strike Back

The U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to use American-supplied weapons to strike Russian forces attacking from across the border is a pragmatic and necessary move, emphasizing strategic flexibility over geographical constraints.

The recent declaration by the U.S. government, allowing Ukraine to use American-supplied weapons to strike Russian forces anywhere they attack from across the border, represents a significant development in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. This decision is both pragmatic and necessary, as it shifts the focus from geographical constraints to strategic and common-sense considerations. If Russian forces are launching attacks from their territory into Ukraine, it is only logical to permit Ukraine to retaliate against those forces, irrespective of their location across the border.

The U.S. National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, emphasized this point succinctly, stating, “This is not about geography. It's about common sense. If Russia is attacking or about to attack from its territory into Ukraine, it only makes sense to allow Ukraine to hit back against the forces that are hitting it from across the border.” This statement underscores the need for a flexible and responsive strategy in the face of ongoing aggression.

The U.S.'s decision to support Ukrainian strikes inside Russia marks a notable evolution in its policy. Initially, the guidance was more restrictive, focusing on the region near Kharkiv, where Ukraine was allowed to use American weapons to counter cross-border assaults. The policy was seen as a necessary measure to help Ukraine defend itself against a specific, localized threat. However, as the conflict has progressed and the nature of the threat has evolved, so too has the U.S.'s stance.

On May 2023, a senior U.S. official explained, “The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them.” This initial step, while crucial, was somewhat limited in scope. It did not explicitly extend to other potential cross-border attacks, which left a gap in Ukraine's defensive capabilities.

The recent clarification from Sullivan and other U.S. officials indicates a broader application of this policy. Now, Ukrainian forces can use American weapons to strike back at any Russian forces attacking from across the border, not just those near Kharkiv. This policy change is a response to the evolving tactics and threats posed by Russian forces, who have shown a willingness to launch attacks from various points along the border.

For instance, Russia has indicated a potential move on the northeastern city of Sumy, which is also near the Russian border. Under the new guidance, Ukraine would be permitted to strike back at Russian forces involved in such an attack, using American-supplied weapons. This broader scope of retaliation is a critical enhancement to Ukraine's defensive strategy.

The rationale behind this policy shift is rooted in practicality and strategic necessity. Warfare is not constrained by arbitrary geographical boundaries, and a rigid adherence to such limitations would only serve to benefit the aggressor. Allowing Ukraine to strike back against any Russian forces attacking from across the border recognizes the fluid and dynamic nature of modern conflict.

From a strategic perspective, this approach enhances Ukraine's ability to deter and defend against Russian aggression. By extending the permissible use of American weapons to any cross-border attacks, the U.S. is providing Ukraine with a more comprehensive and effective means of self-defense. This policy acknowledges that the threat posed by Russian forces is not confined to a single region but is instead a broader and more pervasive danger.

The implications of this policy shift are significant. First, it sends a strong message to Russia that its cross-border attacks will not go unanswered and that Ukraine has the support and capability to respond effectively. This could serve as a deterrent, potentially reducing the frequency and intensity of such attacks.

Second, it bolsters Ukraine's morale and fighting capability. Knowing that they have the backing of the U.S. and access to advanced weaponry for counter-attacks can enhance the resolve and effectiveness of Ukrainian forces. This support is crucial in maintaining the momentum of their defense efforts and in protecting Ukrainian sovereignty.

From a legal and ethical standpoint, this policy is defensible. International law permits nations to defend themselves against armed attacks, and Ukraine's use of American-supplied weapons for defensive purposes falls within this framework. The principle of self-defense is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

Moreover, the ethical justification for allowing Ukraine to strike back against cross-border attacks is clear. Ukraine has the right to defend its territory and its people from aggression. Limiting their ability to do so would be unjust and would undermine their sovereignty and security.

In general, the U.S.'s decision to permit Ukraine to use American-supplied weapons to strike Russian forces anywhere they attack from across the border is a welcome and necessary development. This policy shift aligns with the principles of common sense, strategic necessity, and legal justification. By supporting Ukraine's right to defend itself against cross-border attacks, the U.S. is taking a stand against aggression and in favor of sovereignty and self-defense. This decision not only enhances Ukraine's defensive capabilities but also sends a clear message to Russia and the international community that such aggression will not be tolerated.