The Reason NATO Should Give Ukraine Freedom To Strike Targets In Russia

 

US and NATO permission to strike military targets inside Russia has already degraded the Kremlin's ability to prosecute its war with Ukraine. 

The Ukrainians have proven themselves responsible - and adept - stewards of donated armaments. Proving full permission to strike objectives within western Russia would help further restrict Russia's ability to hit civilian targets, limit offensive capabilities - and likely force the Kremlin to the bargaining table. JL

George Barros reports in the Wall Street Journal:

The US prohibits Kyiv from using U.S.-provided weapons to strike 84% of the Russian territory within range, more than 225 of 250 known Russian military targets, and all 17 mainland Russian military air bases within ATACMS range. A month after the Himars policy change, data demonstrate that Russian forces are still benefiting from a secure rear. Eliminating Russia’s sanctuary would force Moscow to reconfigure its rear areas, deploy protective measures, or reduce its footprint to improve protection at the expense of efficiency, degrading Russia’s quantitative edge in sending men and materiel into Ukraine.

‘I’m the guy that shut Putin down,” President Biden told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. True, Mr. Biden has supported Ukraine. But he has only gradually eased restrictions against firing U.S.-supplied weapons into Russian territory, and he hasn’t gone far enough. His half-measures severely compromise Ukraine’s defense and provide Russia a haven to wage its war.

The Russian military exploited that safe space to mount its renewed cross-border offensive in Kharkiv. In May, the administration said Ukraine could fire Himars missiles against some—but not all—military targets. But the U.S. still forbids Ukraine from using its most potent weapon, the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, anywhere in Russia. Mr. Biden also strictly prohibits Kyiv from using any U.S.-provided weapons to strike 84% of the Russian territory that is within range, more than 225 of 250 known Russian military and paramilitary targets, and all 17 mainland Russian military air bases within ATACMS range.

Nearly a month after the Himars policy change, data demonstrate that Russian forces were still benefiting from a secure rear. A recent Ukrainian strike showed that the Russian military maintained a regimental command within 1 kilometer of the Ukrainian border.

Sending Ukraine F-16 fighters, as the U.S. plans to do later this year, makes little sense while Russia has this sanctuary. Russian S-400 antiaircraft missiles can cover up to 64% of Ukraine’s airspace from the sanctuary. Eliminating it would reduce Russia’s coverage of Ukrainian airspace to 38%.

Mr. Biden should allow Ukraine to strike all legitimate military targets in Russia and occupied Crimea. Ukraine has secured wins every time the West has expanded its strike capability. After Washington gave Ukraine Himars in June 2022, Ukrainian missileers destroyed Russian logistics nodes. Ukraine likely wouldn’t have liberated the city of Kherson in November 2022 without that help.

The American, British and French decisions to arm Ukraine with ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles in 2023 enabled it to wage a long-range strike campaign against the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, compelling Moscow to evacuate vulnerable warships to ports on the Russian mainland. These strikes degraded Russia’s ability to use Crimea as a staging and rear area for defensive operations in southern Ukraine and limited the Black Sea Fleet’s ability to operate in the western Black Sea.

Mr. Biden’s recent policy shift, despite its limitations, has helped blunt Russia’s renewed offensive in Kharkiv and enabled Ukraine to organize local counterattacks. Ukraine’s track record proves it can deal serious blows and break Russia’s grip on key terrain using deep strikes.

Eliminating Russia’s sanctuary would force Moscow to reconfigure its rear areas, deploy protective measures, or reduce its footprint to improve protection at the expense of efficiency, likely degrading Russia’s quantitative edge in sending men and materiel into Ukraine.

The Biden administration is said to fear escalation, but that’s unlikely. Strikes with Western weapons into Russia are already a regular occurrence. Ukrainian forces have struck military targets in Russia’s Belgorod oblast with Himars since June 2024. Vladimir Putin subsequently said that no “exceptional” circumstances had arisen and “there is no such need” for Russia to use nuclear weapons—the latest of several instances in which the West has called Mr. Putin’s bluff.

It is absurd that Washington continues to grant Russia a sanctuary while Moscow wages unrelenting strikes across all of Ukraine and seeks to interdict Western aid. Ukraine is within its rights under international law to strike military targets in Russia. Any serious strategy to defeat Russia’s intensified offensives must remove all advantages freely granted to Moscow. Several North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, including the U.K. and France, support eliminating Russia’s sanctuary. It’s past time for Washington to allow Ukraine to strike back without restrictions.

Mr. Barros is an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.