Why was the United States hesitant to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with American weapons?

As US President Joe Biden sought to avoid an escalation with Russia over military aid to Ukraine, the US government delayed the supply of tanks, ATACMS missiles and the delivery of F-16 aircraft to the Ukraine – and largely restricted the use of US-supplied weapons on Ukrainian territory. Russian territory and airspace.

But in recent weeks, U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, a longtime member of the U.S. Congress, watched from the United States as Russian bombs and missiles fell on Kharkiv while the aggressor country also conducted tactical weapons exercises nuclear. For Larsen, a Washington Democrat and member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the situation added to the escalation.

“On this particular issue, recognizing that this is a full-scale war, the president is concerned about an escalation when Russia has already stepped up its efforts,” Larsen said in an interview this week. last. The congressman had just returned to America from a NATO meeting in Bulgaria where he presented a draft report on the state of the war.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin's comments on the use of tactical nuclear weapons constitute “an escalation of rhetoric,” Larsen added. “To give the impression that simply bombing critical infrastructure in Ukraine is not an escalation.”

Larsen is one of 13 U.S. lawmakers who recently signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to lift restrictions on weapons supplied by the United States to Ukraine. On May 30, media reported that Biden had lifted some restrictions on U.S. weapons that Ukrainians could use around Kharkiv to defend themselves. The same was later confirmed by Presidential Spokesperson Volodymyr Zelensky in a comment to the Kyiv Independent.

In a statement after the news became public, Larsen said the president made the right choice.

“I hope it comes at the right time,” he added. “I hope that U.S. policy continues to be flexible enough to respond to conditions on the ground and allow Ukrainians to fight back against Putin's unjustified invasion.”

The lifting of some restrictions comes after strong pressure in recent weeks from leaders across Europe and NATO's parliamentary assembly, urging America to allow Ukraine to defend itself by striking the territory. Russian. Meanwhile, as the world watched the latest Russian attack on Ukraine's second-largest city, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers also pressed the Biden administration to change course.

At a hearing late last month, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, pressed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the restrictions. Describing the attacks on Kharkiv, McCaul emphasized that Congress did not place restrictions on U.S. weapons when it approved Ukraine's military aid package last month.

“By prohibiting Ukraine from striking Russian territory and airspace, the Biden administration has provided the Putin regime with a sanctuary from which it can kill Ukrainians at will,” McCaul said in a statement to the Kyiv Independent shortly before the announcement of the rollback.

Biden's decision is already being criticized as insufficient. In a statement following reports that some restrictions had been lifted, McCaul and two other House Republicans called the move a “half-measure” by the president on the war.

“To win this war of self-defense against Russian aggression, Ukraine must be allowed to use U.S.-supplied weapons against any legitimate military target in Russia, not just along the border near Kharkiv” , adds the press release. “Once again, President Biden's policy of slowness and half-measures prolongs this conflict without giving Ukraine a decisive advantage on the battlefield to force Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table as quickly as possible.”

Fears of escalation

As the war continues, some researchers and analysts question the effectiveness of Biden's approach to handling the escalation with Russia.

The Biden administration has had “a theory that hitting valid military targets in Russia would lead to further escalation,” said Tom Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington. CC

“But just because it’s a theory doesn’t mean it’s a particularly good theory,” Karako wrote in an emailed comment last month. “An alternative approach would recognize that failing to take the fight to Russia and dismantling its means of continuing its aggression is simply an invitation to further aggression. »

“While there may be good reasons to prioritize certain military targets over others, simply excluding those targets because they are in Russia is not particularly compelling.” , he added.

The Institute for the Study of War recently released a report concluding that Russian jets can strike at least 2,480 settlements in northern Ukraine without having to leave Russian airspace.

Meanwhile, the restrictions have protected approximately 1,750 square kilometers of Russian territory known to be used by Russian military and paramilitary security services from weapons like ATACMS and HIMARS, according to the report. This swath of territory includes “hundreds of known military objects,” including ammunition and fuel depots, command posts, radar bases and airfields, among other targets.

“Ukrainian forces can likely significantly disrupt large-scale Russian operations, provided they eliminate the sanctuary and have sufficient artillery ammunition to strike such legitimate targets,” the report concludes.

Kateryna Stepanenko, an analyst and deputy head of the Russia team at the Institute, said the weapons restrictions “seriously undermine Ukraine's ability to defend itself.”

She described Putin's approach to the United States and Europe as reflexive control, a tactic by which Russia attempts to influence the West's actions by “manipulating our fears to gain an advantage on the field.” of battle”.

“We see Putin playing a role in this phenomenon by engaging in tactical nuclear exercises,” she said in an interview shortly before the announcement that some restrictions would be lifted. She added that the Russians have conducted information operations targeting Western centers of gravity such as London, Brussels, Paris and Washington, DC.

Concerns about escalation have slowed U.S. aid to Ukraine, said U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Himes and Larsen — who also serves on the committee — were two of 13 U.S. lawmakers who signed a letter last month asking the Biden administration to lift some gun restrictions.

“I say this recognizing that the White House has very serious concerns about what Russia would perceive as an escalation,” Himes said in an interview shortly before the Biden administration's changes were announced. “I think we’re almost always too late.”

“I don't think the Russians are going to use a tactical nuclear weapon, I think the Chinese are pretty clear about what would happen if they did,” added Himes, who is a Connecticut Democrat. “I don’t believe there is any chance that Vladimir Putin would hit NATO territory or assets because he would get his ass kicked.”

What’s next?

With many restrictions still in place and new dynamics on the horizon, such as the arrival of F-16 jets in Ukraine, the debate over restrictions will continue. On June 2, President Volodymyr Zelensky called on the United States to let Ukraine strike Russian territory with US-supplied ATACMS missiles.

Stepanenko, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, wrote in an emailed comment that the change would help mitigate the latest Russian attacks in Kharkiv oblast.

“But it preserves the majority of Russian sanctuary space that Ukraine must undermine to defeat Russian ground and air threats,” Stepanenko wrote. “This policy still sufficiently protects Russia's operational and deep rear and is not enough to cause a turning point in the war.”

She also called for future Ukrainian F-16 jets to be able to fire on “Russian planes launching glide bombs from Russian airspace.”

Himes said he was willing to eliminate many restrictions on U.S. weapons, provided Ukrainian officials used them in consultation with the United States.

“The F-16s are probably an example of what I want the Ukrainians to seek advice and consent for,” Himes said, emphasizing the jets' capability as both a defensive and offensive weapon.

“No, I don't want an F-16 flying 500 miles into Russia,” said Himes, who again referred to America's delay in providing aid, in this case for airplanes. “But we’re not there yet, because Ukrainians aren’t flying yet.”