U.S. allies have already reached that conclusion. On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that “the right of self-defense includes attacks on legitimate targets outside Ukraine.” On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron said, “We believe that we must allow (Ukraine) to disable (Russian) military facilities from which the missiles are fired.” Poland has given the go-ahead as well, and Britain has hinted at it. And on Wednesday in Moldova, Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed to foreshadow a U.S. shift in policy, saying the Biden administration has always “adapted and adjusted” to the changing situation. Politico reported that Biden has decided to allow Ukraine to launch U.S. military weapons at Russia around Kharkiv, a major city in northeastern Ukraine that has been under attack in recent weeks.
Russia has been destroying Ukrainian targets with weapons launched from within Ukraine. On Saturday, a Russian glide bomb struck a hardware store in Kharkiv, killing 19 people. Glide bombs are large conventional bombs modified to fly longer distances to their targets. They are extremely difficult for air defense forces to stop, but the Ukrainian-made weapons do not have the capability to attack the airbases in Russia from which they are launched.
A U.S.-supplied ballistic missile system in Ukraine’s arsenal, the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), could enable Ukraine to threaten Russian bases and neutralize Russian advantages. ATACMS has a range of up to 190 miles, nearly double the range of previous missile systems the Biden administration provided to Kiev. However, since Russia launched its full-scale invasion more than two years ago, President Biden has insisted that all U.S.-supplied weapons should only be used on Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014.
Biden imposed the limits because Russian President Vladimir Putin has frequently warned the U.S. that failing to escalate the conflict could spark “World War III.” The president most recently did so on Tuesday, when he said “continuous escalation could have serious consequences.”
Biden’s stance has invited criticism that he is micromanaging and undermining Ukraine’s war effort, a criticism most valid in the case of Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russia’s oil industry deep inside Russian territory, which have helped deprive Moscow of a vital source of revenue but which the Biden administration has blocked out of concern about high oil prices.
Still, given Putin’s unpredictable behavior, the ever-present possibility of miscalculation, and Russia’s battlefield and strategic nuclear arsenals, the president’s concerns are not unfounded and his caution is largely justified. Both Russia and the United States maintain nuclear-tipped missiles in launch-ready positions. The Biden administration is right to insist that Ukraine not threaten Russian nuclear weapons systems. It probably wasn’t a good idea for Ukraine to use drones to attack Russian early-warning radars that could help prevent misfires.
The US and its allies have agreed to supply Ukraine with weapons, train its military, and provide economic and humanitarian assistance, but have not sent their own troops. This should not change. Americans do not want to fight Russia directly, nor should they. The Russian invasion is primarily a Ukrainian war, and the Ukrainian military has fought bravely.
But so far, Putin has not followed through on his most dangerous threats of escalation, whether that be using nuclear weapons or expanding the war outside Ukraine, even though he knows the consequences for Moscow itself could be devastating.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military situation remains grim. Russia is taking advantage of Ukraine’s shortage of troops and ammunition, strengthening its air defense and electronic jamming, and strengthening its military industrial machinery. It seems likely that the war will develop into a long-term war of attrition, but Russia will have a size and population advantage over Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine needs to attack military targets within Russia’s borders to stop Russia from raining bombs on Ukrainian cities and seizing more territory. Importantly, Ukraine seeks to use U.S. weapons only on military targets, in contrast to Russia, which routinely causes civilian deaths.
Biden appears to have made the right, albeit limited, decision to grant Zelensky some of the authorization he seeks, including an explicit but not necessarily public condition that weapons should only be used against military targets. Such a move is a calculated risk, but one well worth taking to help Ukraine thwart cross-border aggression, preserve its hard-won national sovereignty, and build its future as a thriving democracy.
