Every day, Vladimir Putin’s forces launch relentless attacks on Ukrainian cities, targeting civilians and critical infrastructure, particularly as winter approaches. In response, Ukraine has proposed a logical and legally defensible course of action: it wants to use Western-supplied missiles to hit military targets in Russia—the very locations from which these devastating attacks originate. However, the United States, Ukraine’s most significant military supporter, has consistently denied this request, despite its legality and proportionality.

 

Since the start of the conflict, the West has provided over $200 billion in aid, including weapons and financial support, to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression, with another $100 billion expected. While this support has been vital, there has been a frustrating pattern. Time and again, Ukraine’s allies have delayed providing critical military equipment. Initially, they hesitated to supply tanks, then missiles, followed by anti-missile batteries, and more recently, fighter jets. As one Ukrainian front-line commander told *The Economist* during the summer, “They give us enough to survive, but not enough to win.”

 

Next week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet U.S. President Joe Biden, where he is expected to renew his plea for permission to target Russian military positions directly. Both Britain and France have allowed their missiles, such as the Storm Shadow and SCALP, to be used against these targets. However, these weapons rely on American technology, and Washington has so far exercised a veto on their use in Russian territory. Germany has followed America’s lead, refusing to provide its own Taurus missiles. But Zelensky’s most urgent request is for permission to use the U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles, which have a longer range and would provide Ukraine with a much-needed strategic advantage.

 

While the Biden administration has expressed concerns over escalation, this fear is misplaced. Putin has threatened severe consequences if American missiles are used to strike Russian soil, claiming it would be equivalent to NATO entering the war. However, Russia is already pushing its offensive in Ukraine to the limits, short of deploying nuclear weapons. The real threat may lie in Russia retaliating by supporting adversarial forces in other regions, such as Iran or the Houthis, which could destabilize areas outside the immediate conflict.

 

The West’s caution, particularly that of Biden and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, only emboldens Putin. By holding back military capabilities, they inadvertently signal weakness and division within NATO. Putin sees these cracks and likely concludes that the West is tiring of the war and may soon seek a compromise. Peace talks might indeed begin, perhaps spurred by the U.S. election cycle, but to strengthen Ukraine’s position in such discussions, the West needs to fully back Zelensky’s efforts now. 

 

Allowing Ukraine to hit military targets inside Russia is not about expanding the war; it is about leveling the playing field and giving Ukraine the tools to defend itself. Restricting Ukraine's capabilities only rewards Russian recklessness and continues to put Ukrainian lives and sovereignty at risk. Mr. Biden’s reluctance to fully arm Ukraine for victory is a strategic miscalculation, one that should be urgently reconsidered.

 

Credit: Economist 2024-09-21

 

 

 

While the Biden administration has expressed concerns over escalation, this fear is misplaced.Putin has threatened severe consequences 

 

That’s right. Putin is bluffing… until he isn’t. Anybody want to take the chance to be responsible for a full blown European war?