As the Russia-Ukraine conflict intensifies, the U.S. and Britain are now discussing whether to allow Ukraine to use Western-supplied long-range weapons to strike deep into Russian territory. This decision, however, faces skepticism from U.S. officials, who question whether such a move would make a decisive impact on the war.
Key Discussions in Washington
On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington, where the potential of allowing Ukraine to strike beyond its borders with NATO-supplied weapons was a central topic. To date, the U.S. has refrained from granting permission for Kyiv to use American-made arms for attacks within Russia, despite the ongoing 2-1/2-year conflict.
While Ukraine already possesses drones capable of hitting targets in Russia, the addition of U.S.-supplied ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) could enhance Kyiv’s long-range strike capacity. However, American officials argue that these advanced missiles are too expensive and limited in supply to change the overall course of the conflict. Furthermore, the Kremlin has repositioned its warplanes and other strategic assets beyond the range of these missiles, reducing their potential effectiveness.
Biden’s Dilemma: Tactical or Escalatory?
For President Biden, the decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with Western arms is not only a tactical issue but also a strategic one. Any such move risks provoking a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, a scenario Biden has carefully tried to avoid.
Russia has warned that allowing Ukrainian forces to launch attacks inside Russia would make NATO "a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power". President Vladimir Putin has been vocal about this, claiming that such an escalation would alter the entire scope of the war.
Ukraine’s Request: Targeting Russia for Peace?
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly urged the U.S. and its allies to ignore Russia’s "red lines" and grant permission for long-range strikes into Russian territory. According to Zelenskiy, targeting military installations and critical infrastructure deep within Russia could force Moscow to seek peace. Kyiv has even submitted a list of potential Russian targets to Washington and London, which reportedly include military command centers, fuel depots, and troop concentrations.
Yet, U.S. officials remain hesitant. They argue that long-range strikes, while potentially damaging, would not fundamentally alter the course of the war. Instead, they believe that Ukraine should focus on countering Russia’s advances in the eastern regions of the country, where critical battles are being fought.
The Broader Geopolitical Implications
Beyond military tactics, allowing Ukraine to use Western weapons to strike inside Russia brings significant geopolitical risks. Russian diplomats, including their U.N. ambassador Vasily Nebenzya, have consistently warned that NATO involvement in such strikes could provoke a response from Russia, potentially leading to a broader conflict. Some analysts have suggested that Putin could resort to more aggressive measures, such as arming hostile regimes with Russian weapons or even testing nuclear weapons as a warning to the West.
Despite these threats, U.S. lawmakers like Democratic Representative Jason Crow believe that Putin is unlikely to provoke a full-scale confrontation with NATO, given Russia’s heavy losses in Ukraine. "I don't believe there's any indication that Vladimir Putin has an interest in picking a fight with NATO", said Crow, downplaying the risk of Russian retaliation against NATO members.
Strategic Talks: Britain, France & U.S. Alignment
Britain and France, key NATO allies, also play a pivotal role in this debate. The UK has already supplied Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles, while France has provided similar SCALP missiles. Although Britain may seek U.S. approval before lifting restrictions on their use, France does not need Washington’s consent for Ukraine to deploy their missiles for strikes deep inside Russia.
U.S. officials, however, continue to exercise caution. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby emphasized that there has been no change in the U.S. stance on long-range strikes. As he stated in a recent briefing, “It’s hard to take anything coming out of Putin’s face at his word", but the U.S. remains vigilant in monitoring Russian threats.
Weighing the Costs and Benefits
The potential for Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles to strike Russia represents a critical juncture in the war. On one hand, Kyiv argues that such strikes could pressure Moscow into negotiating peace. On the other hand, U.S. officials are concerned about the limited strategic benefits and the risk of escalating the conflict into a NATO-Russia confrontation.
As Biden’s foreign policy legacy is increasingly tied to the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, the decision to authorize or withhold long-range strikes against Russian targets remains fraught with complexity. With voices from both sides of the Atlantic urging caution, it is clear that any decision made in Washington will have profound implications not just for Ukraine, but for global security.
Stay tuned with "In Bulletin", for more futher detailed updates on this Conflict & International News.
