Let slip the dogs of war
Should Ukraine be able to use US weapons to attack Russian territory? The debate in NATO is shifting
Military experts believe that the US policy prohibiting Ukraine from using American weapons to attack targets inside Russia is giving the invader an important advantage as it develops its recent offensive in the northern Kharkiv region.
The latest offensive began on 10 May, but Kharkiv itself — Ukraine’s second-largest city — has come under daily missile attack since the full-scale war began in February 2022.
The city of about 1.4 million people, now crowded with refugees from the surrounding towns and villages, has become something of a symbol of continuing Ukrainian resistance.
Being able to use the powerful, long-range weapons supplied by its Western allies would allow Ukraine to strike at targets across the border in Russia. This would help Kyiv’s military planners shape the wider battlefield in their favour. As it stands, Russia can mass forces and supplies in relative safety as its key infrastructure, such as air bases and supply depots, lie just across the border.
Washington has always been adamant that Ukraine mustn’t use its weapons to target Russia. But there are reports that the State Department is pushing for a change in light of the fresh offensive in the Kharkiv region.
On a visit to Kyiv on 15 May, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken implied that the time might be right to allow Ukraine to use US weapon systems to strike at targets across the border, saying: “We have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war.”
There has been no official policy shift, but the removal of this limitation on Kyiv’s use of US weapons systems would mark a significant moment in the conflict. Despite all the setbacks of the past year, Kyiv has largely adhered to this rule, mindful that serious violations could curb foreign support.
Using Western-made systems would allow Ukraine to increase the tempo of these attacks, potentially limiting Russia’s ability to commit to offensives.
Ukraine is struggling with recruitment and its economy is flagging. Unless Kyiv and its allies can fundamentally shift the character of this conflict, the outlook is not good.
Ultimately, allowing Ukraine to use Western weapons against targets in Russia is not guaranteed to shift the overall strategic balance greatly. It will disrupt Russian supply lines, command structures and logistical hubs, thereby reducing the effectiveness of Russian military operations in Ukraine. But it will not fundamentally alter the balance of power.
Weapons such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are effective enough, but they are unlikely to alter the essential arithmetic at play in what has become a brutal war of attrition. Successive mobilisations have seen Russian forces increased by 15% since the war’s outset. These raw numbers are difficult for Ukraine to match.
Ukraine is struggling with recruitment and its economy is flagging. Unless Kyiv and its allies can fundamentally shift the character of this conflict, the outlook is not good. At present, Putin is content to grind down Ukrainian resistance and wait for Western backing to diminish.
In this regard, the upcoming US election will be a key moment. Another Trump presidency could see Washington refocus on domestic issues, perhaps even cutting the supply of military aid.
But the use of Western weapons to strike Russian territory would have significant geopolitical implications. It could lead to increased tensions between Russia and the NATO countries supplying the weapons. The risk of escalation, including the possibility of Russia retaliating against NATO members, is a serious concern, particularly given Vladimir Putin’s repeated use of nuclear threats aimed to stoke Western fears.
The debate over whether to permit Ukrainian use of Western military aid to strike Russian territory involves a complex interplay of military strategy and geopolitical considerations.
