Pressure Builds On Biden To Let Ukraine Strike Inside Russia Using U.S. Weapons

YouTube player

When it comes to America con­tin­ued desire to be a war­ring nation, there is lit­tle dis­tinc­tion between the two polit­i­cal par­ties. Both the Democratic and Republican Party are heav­i­ly invest­ed in the con­cept of war as a means of main­tain­ing America’s hege­mon­ic con­trol over oth­er nations on our planet.(mb)

Let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike tar­gets inside Russia.

That mes­sage, long a pri­or­i­ty for Kyiv and its fiercest back­ers, is now being voiced by a grow­ing num­ber of Western lead­ers. The United States has so far remained unmoved by this pres­sure, putting it at odds with allies — and in the com­pa­ny of the Kremlin, which has warned against such a move.

But there are signs this could soon change.

The debate inside the Biden admin­is­tra­tion over the issue is ongo­ing, and some top offi­cials back lift­ing the restric­tions on how Ukraine uses weapons pro­vid­ed by Washington, two sources with knowl­edge of the mat­ter told NBC News.

That debate has gained urgency since Russia launched a new cross-bor­der offen­sive in Ukraine’s north­east­ern Kharkiv region ear­li­er this month, and Kyiv has warned that it could also be mass­ing troops for anoth­er incur­sion in neigh­bor­ing Sumy.

Ukraine feels it has been left hand­i­capped, argu­ing that the restric­tions on its use of Western-sup­plied weapons have giv­en Moscow an unfair advantage.

Russia “can use the mil­i­tary infra­struc­ture on its ter­ri­to­ry for the war against Ukraine with­out any obsta­cles,” said Mykola Bielieskov, a research fel­low at Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies, a gov­ern­ment research group.

As a result, there is a pow­er­ful asym­me­try,” Bielieskov, based in Kyiv, told NBC News on Wednesday. “This has been talked about for a long time. It’s just that the Russian offen­sive in the Kharkiv region clear­ly showed this.”

Ukrainian soldiers from the 92nd assault brigade were involved in holding back the Russians on the border with Russia.  In recent days Russian forces have gained ground around the Kharkiv region, which Ukraine had largely reclaimed in the months following Russia's initial large-scale invasion in February 2022.  (Kostiantyn Liberov / Getty Images)

The new urgency from Kyiv, which is still wait­ing for cru­cial U.S. mil­i­tary aid, has prompt­ed a grow­ing list of Western offi­cials to back the idea of remov­ing the restric­tions on hit­ting tar­gets inside Russia.

For much of the war, Kyiv’s part­ners have drawn a sol­id red line at let­ting Ukraine use the weapons they sup­ply inside Russian ter­ri­to­ry, fear­ing an esca­la­tion from the Kremlin that could turn the con­flict into a World War III.

The Biden admin­is­tra­tion has been con­sis­tent in this stance, per­haps wor­ried that Russian President Vladimir Putin could retal­i­ate using nuclear weapons — which he has reg­u­lar­ly threat­ened through­out the conflict.

But with Ukraine out­num­bered, out­gunned and on the back foot, Kyiv has been mak­ing a pub­lic case for its allies to loosen their restrictions.

And it seems to be working.

French President Emmanuel Macron became the lat­est high-pro­file backer of the idea Tuesday. He sug­gest­ed Ukraine should be allowed to hit mil­i­tary tar­gets inside Russia from which mis­siles were being fired at Ukrainian ter­ri­to­ry, an appar­ent com­pro­mise position.

He was joined by German leader Olaf Scholz, who had resist­ed the idea but agreed to the con­cept Tuesday.

It comes on the back of NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg’s repeat­ed pleas to let Ukraine use Western-sup­plied weapons to hit tar­gets inside Russia, say­ing that not doing so ham­pers Kyiv’s abil­i­ty “to defend them­selves.” It’s a view shared by a num­ber of European mem­bers of the alliance, includ­ing the United Kingdom, Sweden and Poland.

In pre­vi­ous debates inside the Biden admin­is­tra­tion over how far to go in arm­ing Ukraine, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and CIA Director William Burns have staked out a bold­er stance, sup­port­ing the pro­vi­sion of longer-range mis­siles and oth­er weapons — and have often pre­vailed fol­low­ing appeals from law­mak­ers and European governments.

And on Wednesday, Blinken appeared to leave room for a shift on this issue, too.

We haven’t encour­aged or enabled strikes out­side of Ukraine. Ukraine, as I’ve said before, has to make its own deci­sions about the best way to effec­tive­ly defend itself,” he said dur­ing a trip to Europe that will include a NATO meet­ing Thursday. A “hall­mark” of U.S. sup­port for Ukraine, he said, “has been to adapt.”

As the con­di­tions have changed, as the bat­tle­field has changed, as what Russia does has changed,” he added. “We’ve adapt­ed and adjust­ed too and I’m con­fi­dent we’ll con­tin­ue to do that.”

Russian strikes on the eastern Ukraine city of Kharkiv on May 23, 2024, in the latest aerial bombardment on the war-battered hub. (@oleksiykuleba / AFP - Getty Images)
Russian strikes on the east­ern Ukraine city of Kharkiv on May 23, 2024, in the lat­est aer­i­al bom­bard­ment on the war-bat­tered hub. (@oleksiykuleba /​AFP — Getty Images)

The Kremlin has sought to ward off the move, with Putin warn­ing European NATO states Tuesday that they were play­ing with fire and risk­ing “glob­al conflict.”

Moscow recent­ly staged exer­cis­es to sim­u­late the use of tac­ti­cal nuclear weapons, in a like­ly sig­nal to the West against deep­er involve­ment in Ukraine.

The risk of esca­la­tion seems to be exact­ly what’s kept Biden reluc­tant to allow the use of American weapons on Russian soil, said Christopher Tuck, an expert in con­flict and secu­ri­ty at King’s College London.

Putin’s com­ments should be seen in this light: he is attempt­ing to feed the fears of those who believe that cross­ing this U.S. red line would move NATO’s rela­tion­ship with Russia into a new and dan­ger­ous phase,” he said.

It’s clear from frus­tra­tion build­ing in Ukraine that it will not vio­late the ban unless the U.S. soft­ens its position.

We can­not, and this is a fact, risk the sup­port of part­ners,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday. “Therefore, we do not use the weapons of our part­ners on the ter­ri­to­ry of the Russian Federation. And we appeal: give us the oppor­tu­ni­ty to retal­i­ate against their mil­i­tary forces.”

His com­ments came after a group of law­mak­ers from both par­ties last week pub­licly urged the White House to give Kyiv the green light.

Ukrainians have been unable to defend them­selves due to the Administration’s cur­rent pol­i­cy. It is essen­tial the Biden Administration allows Ukraine’s mil­i­tary lead­ers an abil­i­ty to con­duct a full spec­trum of oper­a­tions nec­es­sary to respond to Russia’s unpro­voked attack on their sov­er­eign land,” the law­mak­ers wrote in a let­ter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

But the Biden administration’s fears might be exac­er­bat­ed by Ukraine’s increas­ing­ly dar­ing use of its own weapons, most­ly drones, to strike strate­gic tar­gets deep inside Russia such as oil refineries.

U.S. Secretary of State meets with Czech Republic's Defense Minister Jana Cernochova in Prague, Czech Republic on May 30, 2024. (Petr David Josek / AP)
U.S. Secretary of State meets with Czech Republic’s Defense Minister Jana Cernochova in Prague, Czech Republic on May 30, 2024. (Petr David Josek /​AP)

A Ukrainian drone tar­get­ed a long-range radar deep inside Russia that forms part of the country’s bal­lis­tic mis­sile ear­ly warn­ing sys­tem Sunday, a Ukrainian intel­li­gence offi­cial told NBC News. The offi­cial want­ed to remain anony­mous because they are not autho­rized to dis­close details of the strike, which appeared to be the sec­ond in a week against infra­struc­ture used by Moscow to mon­i­tor Ukraine’s mil­i­tary activities.

Although the U.S. is like­ly to remove the restric­tions on the use of its weapons inside Russia even­tu­al­ly, Tuck said, Ukraine would have to be care­ful about the sorts of tar­gets that it attacks and would need to avoid inflict­ing civil­ian casualties.

It’s also impor­tant to put any U.S. deci­sion into per­spec­tive, he added.

Russian forces have made slow progress in Kharkiv oblast, so it is like­ly that a U.S. deci­sion would be in time to make a mil­i­tar­i­ly use­ful con­tri­bu­tion to the fight there,” Tuck said. “But it isn’t a deci­sion that is going to change the course of the war.”

This arti­cle was orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished on NBCNews​.com

%d