Ukraine on Thursday (29 August) intensified its push for Western approval to strike military targets deep inside Russia, urging allies to lift restrictions on the use of their donated long-range weapons.
“We expect the permission, and we expect the delivery of missiles which can be used for that purpose,” Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said before meeting European counterparts in Brussels on Thursday (29 August).
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Kuleba’s appeal echoed the one voiced by his President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week on allies to loosen restrictions further.
In Brussels, Kuleba told reporters he sought “permission for Ukraine to strike legitimate military targets in the depths of Russia.”
On Wednesday (28 August), Moscow fired over 200 missiles targeting Ukraine’s power grid and water plants in the wake of Ukraine’s continued push into Russia’s Kursk region, the location of key Russian military bases.
EU’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell, standing alongside Kuleba, repeated his earlier calls on the need for ministers to discuss lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western weapons on military targets inside Russia.
How and why Ukraine remains restricted
The main rationale behind Ukraine’s push for unrestricted use of donated long-range weapons is that they are crucial for its defence against Russia, particularly in targeting supplies and other military targets located across the border.
Ukraine’s Turning Point
This plea, however, comes after a recent softening of restrictions by some of Ukraine’s Western backers following Russia’s offensive near Kharkiv in May.
In response to that offensive, Western allies began easing some restrictions on long-range weapons capable of striking targets between 30 and 200 kilometres away.
For example, the US and Germany started supporting Ukraine in targeting Russian military sites on Russian territory. Over ten other countries, including the United Kingdom, Finland, France, Poland, Lithuania, and the Netherlands, also endorsed such actions.
Before May, instead, Westerners such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany had strictly refused for Ukraine to target Russian territory with long-range weapons. They had either technically dimmed their firing range or explicitly placed restrictions on their use against Russian territory for fear of escalating the conflict with Russia.
Important caveats remain
Despite these developments, Ukraine still argues that the recent easing of restrictions by Western allies is still insufficient for its defence needs, as caveats remain.
Washington’s green light is limited to weapons fired from Kharkhiv and does not apply to 300km-ranging ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems). Similarly, London forbids the use of Storm Shadow missiles firing beyond 250 km, and Germany refuses to send 500 km-ranging Taurus missiles. Additionally, US-made F-16 fighter jets are not meant to be used in Russia.
For this reason, the US, the United Kingdom, and Germany are the prime targets of Ukraine’s lobbying for dropping them, although with little success so far.
Yet, Ukrainian officials and some of their staunchest Western backers hope that should Washington remove its reservations, others will follow suit.
Ukraine’s Defence Minister Rustem Umerov and Zelenskyy’s senior advisor Andriy Yermak are expected to travel to Washington in the following days to lobby for the lifting of restrictions on the use of Western weapons.
Question of military advantage
Ukraine’s request is even more important since it has now entered Russia, moving the frontline and, therefore, targeting even further. However, the US, in particular, does not support Ukraine in carrying the long-range across the borders.
The incursion has shifted the debate to “guided rocket artillery because it made it obviously absurd that the front line straddled the border, but Russian forces could sit just on the other side, ‘safe’ from weapons like HIMARS,” said Matthew Savill, director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
The Biden administration has voiced the belief that there would be only minimal tactical advantage as many targets have been moving further inland, Politico reported.
When asked what the military advantage of delivering Storm Shadows and ATACMS would be, Savill said both would help Ukrainians “by undermining the coordination and supply of Russian forces.”
That said, he added, “There is already evidence that many jets have been moved deeper into Russia, beyond ATACMS range. In addition, the large air strikes using long-range ballistic or cruise missiles are launched from Russian navy vessels in the eastern Black Sea or long-range bombers based (mostly) deep into Russia,” well out of range of ATACMS and Storm Shadow.
NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said before the summer that restrictions accounted for tying Ukraine’s hands behind their back.
National political prerogative
The right to apply and lift restrictions on using donated military equipment is highly political.
It rests with the national government that allows donations to Ukraine – the government is the one whose industry manufactures the weapons. This applies even when these donations are funded by multinational funds like the European Peace Facility (EPF).
Concretely, restrictions on French-made missiles, for example, rest in Paris’s hands. However, even if the Netherlands wants to donate US-made fighter jets to Ukraine, the decision on their use remains in Washington’s hands.
Palianytsia, the newly announced home-grown Ukrainian long-range drone missile (600-700 kilometres), could be a solution to bridge the gap in Western-made supplies. Zelenskyy revealed its existence at the end of August and said it had been successfully used in Russian-controlled territory.
However, Ukraine’s domestically produced arms have had limited overall impact, as the country’s defence industry has primarily focused on drones.
Reprinted from Euractiv. You can find the original here.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
