You can’t hit the Kremlin, but where can you: What bans does the US impose on its weapons?

US ban will deepen divide among allies

“If someone thinks that we should be in a weak state, that we should sit and wait until death comes to us, then you will not wait for either our death or our weakness. Ukraine. “Because the more we can destroy military targets on the territory of the Russian Federation, the sooner this war will end with the victory of Ukraine,” he said.

The same opinion is confirmed by President Vladimir Zelensky. At all meetings he emphasizes: since we are talking about the defense of Ukraine, there should not be a ban on the use of Western weapons in attacks on Russian territory.

The American edition of The Wall Street Journal recently noted that Ukraine applied to the White House with a request for permission to use American weapons on military targets in the Russian Federation. However, they stated that the position has not changed: weapons from the USA should be used only for defensive purposes and also inside Ukraine. According to US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, “there is no change in US policy” at this time.

British newspaper The Times claims that the US ban on Kiev to strike targets in the Russian Federation will increase disagreements between allies.

Since the beginning of the veto

The supply of long-range weapons from foreign partners is accompanied by political restrictions initially determined by Ukraine’s borders. And above all from the USA. The Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot conduct American-style attacks against military targets on Russian territory, even if these targets pose a threat to the civilian population and are used to destroy critical infrastructure.

This problem became even more pronounced in connection with the offensive of the Russian army in the Kharkov direction. The Russian Federation is massing forces at the border before starting military operations. They may be targeted by Ukrainian forces to prevent further attacks. As well as decision-making centers, logistics centers and warehouses for fuels and lubricants. Vladimir Zelensky commented, “Therefore, we are talking about defense, not attack.”

Important

“Everyone understands that the attack of Russian troops on the territory of the Kharkov region was possible due to bans and restrictions,” he says Focus political scientist Pyotr Oleshchuk said, “In this way, Russia can gather its soldiers at any point of the border. Therefore, instead of limiting tension, this ban, on the contrary, makes it easier for Russia to carry out its aggressive actions. “Most states understand this.”

Kharkov is located close to the border with the Russian Federation and the city is regularly bombarded with rockets and KABs. Aviation flights are operated from airports and other military facilities in the Belgorod and Kursk regions. “It is clear that Ukraine will systematically destroy these places as soon as it receives permission and the situation will change.”

Experts say that, first of all, the Armed Forces of Ukraine should take under fire control the border regions of the Russian Federation – Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk regions – where troops can accumulate. That is, asking for permission to use missiles with a radius of 50-70 km. And this may be a certain compromise option, because civilians no longer live in these regions of the Russian Federation – an evacuation has been carried out.

“Trade is ongoing. The situation is plastic, you can try to turn it as it should. Lately we have been thinking that these weapons can only be used in the Kremlin or Red Square. But such approvals are secret” – notes in a conversation with. Focus Ivan Stupak, expert of the Ukrainian Future Institute.

Agreement from partners

The debate on granting Ukraine permission to launch an attack on the territory of the Russian Federation was conducted at the highest political level of both the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance.

First, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on member countries to lift restrictions on the use of weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation, and then the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Alliance called on the governments of all NATO member countries to allow Ukraine to use weapons in Ukraine. Using Western weapons on Russian territory.

In parallel, some countries, including Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland and Finland, expressed their support for such a permit. Canada stated that by supplying weapons to Kiev, it did not impose any conditions on their use.

In addition, Britain stated that it had no objection to the use of its weapons in a wider area outside the borders of Ukraine, and made a statement: “Just like Russia attacking Ukraine…” May 2 David Cameron.

Important

Let us recall that London supplies Ukraine with Storm Shadow long-range missiles, which have already been used against targets in occupied Crimea, as well as on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Additionally, the leaders of France and Germany also supported the idea. “How do we explain to Ukraine that they have to defend their cities, but they have no right to attack where the missiles come from? It’s as if we are telling them: ‘We are giving you weapons, but you cannot use them.’ Protect yourself,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who until recently was one of the most reserved Western leaders on this issue, also said that Ukraine had the right to strike targets in Russia “in accordance with international law.” defend yourself.

Italy and Spain opposed lifting the ban.

The main purpose is to put pressure on the USA

While the United States flatly refused to change its ban on Ukraine striking targets in Russia, most of the comments from European leaders and experts were directed at the administration of US President Joe Biden.

“Washington, which provides the bulk of Kiev’s firepower, has been reluctant to approve the use of its missiles outside Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders for fear that NATO could be dragged into direct conflict with the Russian Federation, the world’s largest nuclear superpower. The Times reported, “Ukraine’s “This allowed it to use powerful ground-launched ATACMS ballistic missiles to strike military targets in Crimea and other battlefield targets in war-torn Ukraine,” he said.

“First, the United States really takes into account that the Russian Federation has 6,000 nuclear warheads, some of which are active. Second, the US remains with the concept that “it is better to have poor communication than not to have it”. “. That is, to maintain contacts to tie the Russian Federation to Western civilization with a thin ribbon. And finally, to control the steps of the Russian Federation towards Iran and North Korea, So that new centers of tension are not created. This principle, which is still ongoing and shaky they fear that the balance will be violated,” says Ivan Stupak.

This is the logic of the “red lines” that the United States has not wanted to give up for a long time. Political scientist Oleshchuk talks about this. “It lies in the fact that if you set the rules for waging this war, it is possible to curb the so-called tension, which is the uncontrolled use of weapons during the military conflict,” he explains. “From the point of view of the United States, Ukraine is firing American weapons on the territory of Ukraine – if on the territory of the Russian Federation it can be interpreted differently, for example, that the United States As an act of aggression, this is considered self-defense. Frankly, Washington has repeatedly expressed this through diplomatic channels. This fits well with the tasks that President Biden has previously formulated, not allowing the United States to be dragged into a direct military conflict with Russia. “Given the red lines, they avoid it. But under these conditions, victory for this mission is impossible, as Ukraine, which is under attack and has fewer resources than the Russian Federation, faces unfair restrictions.”

World leaders (Ukraine’s partners) started talking recently that it was not about containment, but victory.

Moreover, it is obvious that the concept of “red line” does not work. Recently, Ukraine has been carrying out effective attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation not only on oil refineries, but also on military targets, in particular strategic targets such as over-the-horizon radar stations. And the Kremlin only reacts with angry statements.

And these statements often play into the Kremlin’s hands politically. “We see that there is no consensus on this issue on the Western flank,” Dmitry Peskov, Russian ruler Putin’s press secretary, said of the debate between American and European politicians.

White House decision

“The crowd effect should have worked. When the number of parties that accepted these coups was greater than those who did not. This is a purely psychological reaction. Remember in school when someone flunked and everyone left, you begin to doubt. Stupak said Blinken was already confusing and diplomatic in his attitude ” “We are not happy, but what can we do?” The Pentagon objected twice, but the final statement was heavy and vague.

Indeed, on the eve of the decision to allow Ukraine to use American weapons, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke and justified the possibility of revising the ban after returning from Kiev. There were also growing voices of support from Congress, especially from Democrats. Republican Congressman Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives, also supported lifting restrictions on the Ukrainian Armed Forces. “We should allow Ukraine to conduct the war as they see fit. They should be able to respond. And I don’t think it’s good policy for us to try to micromanage the effort,” he said in a commentary for Voice of America.

And so the White House press service reported that the United States would allow Ukraine to use weapons produced in the United States to attack military targets used to attack the Kharkov region in Russia.

The Biden administration secretly gave Ukraine permission to attack Russian territory — only in the Kharkov region — using U.S.-supplied weapons, three U.S. officials and two other people familiar with the move said Thursday. This is a big change that will help better protect Ukraine. second largest city,” Politico reported.

In other words, Ukraine will be able to use US-supplied weapons to hit Russian missiles launched towards Kharkov, use them against troops massed along the Russian border near the city, or against Russian bombers dropping bombs on Ukrainian territory.

At the same time, the US policy regarding the prohibition of long-range strikes deep into Russia has not changed. A US official said Ukraine could not use these weapons to destroy civilian infrastructure or launch long-range missiles or even hit military targets deep inside Russia.