Let the dogs of war escape. Should Ukraine be able to use American weapons to attack Russian territory? The debate within NATO is changing — Novaya Gazeta Europe

The latest offensive began on May 10, but Kharkiv itself – Ukraine's second largest city – has been the target of daily missile attacks since the full-scale war began in February 2022.

The city of about 1.4 million people, now populated by refugees from surrounding towns and villages, has become something of a symbol of continued Ukrainian resistance.

Being able to use the powerful long-range weapons supplied by its Western allies would allow Ukraine to strike targets across the Russian border. This would help kyiv's military planners shape the broader battlefield in their favor. As things stand, Russia can mass its forces and supplies in relative safety because its key infrastructure, such as air bases and supply depots, is just across the border.

Washington has always insisted that Ukraine should not use its weapons to target Russia. But there are reports that the State Department is pushing for change in light of the new offensive in the Kharkiv region.

During a visit to kyiv on May 15, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested that now might be the time to allow Ukraine to use U.S. weapons systems to strike U.S. targets. across the border: “We neither encouraged nor permitted strikes outside the territory. Ukraine, but ultimately it is up to Ukraine to decide for itself how it will fight this war.”

There has been no official policy change, but removing this limitation on kyiv's use of U.S. weapons systems would mark an important moment in the conflict. Despite all the setbacks of the past year, kyiv has largely respected this rule, aware that serious violations could dampen foreign support.

Several of Ukraine's allies have given the green light to kyiv to use their weapons systems on Russian territory. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently said during a visit to kyiv that Ukraine “has absolutely the right to retaliate against Russia.” It appears that France is ready to follow suit.

Ukraine has already carried out deep strikes into Russia using its own weapons, including basic drones, which have significantly hampered Russian fuel production and even targeted Moscow. But its resources are limited. The use of Western-made systems would allow Ukraine to increase the pace of these attacks, potentially limiting Russia's ability to engage in offensives.

Ukrainian strikes have already begun to disrupt the Russian rear. If US weapons systems were allowed to be used against targets in Russia, Russia's interior would no longer be secure. Crucially, it could force Moscow to withdraw Russian air defense and move attack aircraft away from the front lines to defend critical infrastructure.

Nonetheless, a possible expansion of how this aid can be used, including striking targets in Russia, raises several important considerations.

Ultimately, allowing Ukraine to use Western weapons against targets in Russia does not guarantee that the overall strategic balance will be significantly altered. This would disrupt Russian supply lines, command structures and logistics centers, thereby reducing the effectiveness of Russian military operations in Ukraine. But this will not fundamentally alter the balance of power.

Weapons such as High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) are effective enough, but are unlikely to change the essential arithmetic at play in what has become a brutal war of attrition. Successive mobilizations have seen Russian forces increase by 15% since the start of the war. These raw numbers are difficult for Ukraine to match.

Ukraine is struggling to recruit and its economy is in decline. Unless kyiv and its allies can fundamentally change the nature of this conflict, the prospects are not good. Right now, Putin is content to crush Ukrainian resistance and wait for Western support to wane.

In this regard, the next American elections will be a key moment. A new Trump presidency could see Washington refocus on domestic issues, or even reduce military aid.

But using Western weapons to strike Russian territory would have significant geopolitical implications. This could lead to increased tensions between Russia and arms-supplying NATO countries. The risk of escalation, including the possibility of Russian retaliation against NATO members, is a major concern, particularly given Vladimir Putin's repeated use of the nuclear threat to stoke Western fears.

The risk of calculation errors and unforeseen consequences cannot be overlooked. A strike on Russian territory could provoke a strong, even unpredictable, response from Russia. The Kremlin's nuclear threats, while often seen as bluster, cannot be entirely dismissed, especially if they choose to view direct attacks on their country as an existential threat. Russian military doctrine authorizes the use of nuclear weapons if this is the case.

The debate over whether to allow Ukraine to use Western military aid to strike Russian territory involves a complex interplay of military strategy and geopolitical considerations. Although such a move could bring significant tactical advantages to Ukraine, it would not fundamentally alter the overall strategic situation. It also carries significant risks that must be carefully weighed.

The evolving nature of this conflict requires continued assessment and a careful approach to ensure that actions taken contribute to a lasting and just resolution without escalating into a wider, more devastating war.