Will restrictions on weapons be lifted?
“Biden must stop tying Ukraine’s hands”
By Frauke Niemeyer
23.05.2024, 19:58
Ukraine’s combat effectiveness is also suffering because the West claims that its weapons are not allowed to operate on Russian soil. But in the USA this position is crumbling. An end to the ban could give a boost to Ukraine’s defense capability.
Will the morale of the Ukrainian troops under pressure be boosted if US Secretary of State Antony Blinken picks up his guitar during his visit to Kyiv? It’s questionable. But the American is now taking Kyiv’s side on a potentially vital issue and could soon make a difference on the front lines.
According to a report in the New York Times, Blinken initiated an internal debate in the White House following his trip to Ukraine: He wants to abolish the condition that Ukraine may only use Western weapons on or over its own property. The Western supporters attached this condition to their deliveries from day one. It didn’t matter what it was about: armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft defenses or F16 fighter jets.
This is a condition that is not covered or required by international law. International law grants the attacked country the right to self-defense. Whether this occurs with counterattacks on your own or enemy territory is irrelevant. Accordingly, the Western condition seemed arbitrary to the experts from the start.
Security expert Nico Lange, for example, rates the restriction on the use of Western weapons as “militarily completely senseless.” “In a war, military targets have to be attacked. If, for example, you are attacked with aircraft from Russian territory, the best way is of course to attack the air force bases from which the jets take off.” What applies to fighter jets also applies to artillery shells or cruise missiles: much more effective than fending off a weapon in action is to paralyze the system and logistics behind it. It is also cheaper because one successful strike – for example against a rocket launcher – can prevent the use of many rockets.
“Forced to fight with one hand behind my back”
Political scientist Carlo Masala has been making it clear for months how much the restriction to their own territory hinders the Ukrainian troops’ use of Western weapons: “We are forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand behind its back,” is how he summarizes it. The USA provides Ukraine, among other things, with missiles with ranges of 77 kilometers (HIMARS) and those that fly 170 or 300 kilometers (ATACMS). But with the range limitation, the weapons fall far short of their capabilities when used.
We can only speculate about the reasons for this policy; the supporting states have not made any concrete statements. One motive could be to counteract concerns in their own country about NATO involvement. Even if this question is not decided by attacks on Russian territory. Perhaps it is enough to worry that Russian President Vladimir Putin might feel the same way. Fears are also repeatedly expressed that a Russian defeat could damage Putin politically so badly that he loses power and plunges the country into chaos. A chaos that could also be dangerous for the West. The attempted uprising last year by the now deceased Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner mercenary group, is said to have caused unrest in Western governments.
Scientist Lange does not consider any of these considerations to be valid, as experience over the past two years has taught us otherwise: “The headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet has been bombed, ships have been sunk, and Ukraine is constantly attacking targets on Russian territory with its own weapons. The feared dire consequences have never occurred,” Lange concludes, and demands: “Things that were considered correct two years ago must also be checked.” The security expert also warns against overestimating Western influence on events in Russia. “Anyone who believes that Putin must get at least a piece of Ukraine to prevent Russia from falling apart is falling for Russian propaganda.”
This realization now seems to be taking hold in some minds in Washington’s political establishment – although, one has to fear, for dramatic reasons: With their recent offensive towards the large city of Kharkiv in northeastern Ukraine, the Russian troops were so successful, among other things, because the region directly is on the Russian border. Accordingly, the brigades were able to assemble on Russian soil without Ukraine being able to use American HIMARS missiles to prevent the formation of troops. It is not allowed to fire US ammunition onto Russian soil.
The successful Russian attacks near the border seem to have made it clear to some influential Western governments that the condition that has been in place for over two years is having a fatal effect on the battlefield. The Ukrainian army has long been successfully using its own drones to attack the enemy’s infrastructure on Russian territory, but they cannot match the combat power of the US weapons supplied. And the country’s own drone production simply cannot meet demand.
“Some decision-makers are really looking for the first time”
“Apparently the consequences of the restrictions have only been imagined abstractly for a long time,” says Lange. “Now some decision-makers are really looking at it for the first time and realizing: From a military point of view, it’s crazy to wait until the opponents come across the border. You have to be able to fight them first.”
This must have been particularly sobering for Secretary of State Blinken during his visit to Ukraine last week. At least he is now working with politicians from Biden’s inner circle on easing the US ban. The aim should be to allow the Ukrainians to attack Russian missile and artillery systems across the border. Oil refineries located further away could still remain part of the restrictions.
There is support for Blinken’s initiative, including from the ranks of the Republicans. With the ban, “the Biden administration has given the Putin regime a haven from which it can kill Ukrainians at will,” said Republican Representative Michael McCaul. “President Biden must stop tying Ukraine’s hands and immediately reverse this policy.”
The renowned Institute for the Study of War (ISW) analyzes that US policy has created “a vast shelter in which Russia has been able to marshal its ground forces for the invasion and from which it has used glide bombs and other long-range missiles to support its renewed invasion.” . The ISW concludes: “It should be changed immediately.”
The White House could base its decision-making on its British partners. They lifted their restrictions, for example on the powerful Storm Shadow cruise missile, a while ago – without making much of a fuss about it. Foreign Secretary David Cameron stressed during his recent visit to Ukraine that Kiev had “absolutely the right to hit back” against Russia.
Political scientist Lange advocates that this kind of discussion should no longer be held at all. “We are supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition so that it can carry out its defensive struggle, which we support on the basis of international law. How and where the army uses what is supplied is up to Ukraine – that’s it.” Such an attitude on the part of Western supporters would enable the Ukrainians to fight within hours, still with limited armament, but “with both hands in front.”