The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has reached a critical juncture. With the Russian military leveraging its territorial advantages, the debate over whether Ukraine should be permitted to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets within Russia has intensified.
Ukraine’s efforts to defend its sovereignty have been stymied by restrictions on using Western weapons beyond its own borders. Since receiving American HIMARS, British Storm Shadows, and French SCALP missiles, Ukraine has successfully targeted numerous high-value Russian assets within its own territory. However, these tools have not been allowed to cross into Russian soil. This policy, according to military experts, has created a “sanctuary” for Russian forces just beyond the reach of Ukrainian retaliation.
The Institute for the Study of War has highlighted the consequences of these restrictions. “US and other Western limitations on Ukraine’s ability to strike military targets in Russia have created a sanctuary in Russia’s border areas from which Russian aircraft can conduct glide bomb and missile strikes against Ukrainian positions and settlements and where Russian forces and equipment can freely assemble before entering combat,” the think tank explained.
A group of U.S. congressmen has urged the Biden administration to empower Ukraine’s military with the full range of operational capabilities needed to counter Russian aggression effectively. The appeal emphasizes that current policies limit Ukraine’s defensive operations.
One significant point of contention is the supply and use of long-range missiles. The U.S. has recently provided Ukraine with MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), capable of striking targets up to 190 miles away. Yet, the utilization of these missiles has been confined to the occupied territory. “If you’re worried about Russian forces overrunning your defenses, you want to go after the headquarters and you want to go after the logistics that would enable Russian attacks,” noted Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general and former commander of U.S. Army Europe.
NATO’s eastern flank members, including Estonia and Finland, have adopted a more aggressive stance, allowing the use of their weapons without geographic restrictions. Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has criticized Western hesitance, stating that Russian President Vladimir Putin interprets indecision as appeasement. Kallas recently pointed out that Putin will interpret indecisiveness as appeasement when it comes to the ineffective limitations on weaponry.
The recent success of Ukraine using ATACMS to strike Russian naval vessels in the Black Sea demonstrates the potential effectiveness of removing these restrictions. Prior to the transfer of the missiles by America, Russia issued threats of direct military confrontation if ATACMS were employed against their forces. The Kremlin’s failure to respond indicates that their threats were merely bluffs.
The debate over extending the operational scope of Western weapons to Russian territory remains contentious. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has reiterated that U.S. policy focuses on supporting Ukraine within its sovereign borders. However, British Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has suggested a potential shift, indicating that UK-supplied weapons could be used to strike strategic targets, including those in Crimea and possibly beyond.
Relevant articles:
– Time to Take the Handcuffs off Ukraine: Let Western Weapons Attack Russia , 19FortyFive, 05/23/2024
– A group of U.S. congressmen called for Ukraine to be allowed to use U.S. weapons to strike Russian soil, Militarnyi, 05/22/2024
– Ukraine’s getting more longe-range missiles that leave the Russians with ‘nowhere to hide’, Yahoo News UK, 05/20/2024
– America ban on Ukraine using US-supplied weapons to hit targets in Russia creates ‘sanctuary’ for Putin army, Yahoo News UK, 05/21/2024
Glad you enjoyed above story, be sure to follow TrendyDigests on Microsoft Start.