Can Ukraine be granted permission to hit Russian targets using Western-supplied arms?

Is Ukraine permitted to assault Russian targets using Western-provided arms?

The French President Macron has addressed the question with clarity, while discussions continue within the US administration. Meanwhile, the German Chancellor? He's focusing on the range of weapons provided by Germany.

At tonight and tomorrow's NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Prague, the possibility of Ukraine assaulting military targets on Russian soil with Western weapons may also be discussed. Although there won't be an official decision, the summit's main focus is to prepare for the NATO anniversary in Washington, July.

NATO doesn't have a unified stance on this issue. The US and Germany, for instance, forbid Ukraine from targeting Russian targets with their weapons. However, countries like Sweden, Poland, the Baltic states, and France have a different opinion and permit Ukrainian forces to engage in battle on Russian land.

Ukraine's only option for attacks on Russian targets are self-produced weapons, as restrictions from the US and Germany hinder their ability to fight effectively.

The situation has become critical since Russia opened a new front against Ukraine in the north, near Kharkiv. President Volodymyr Zelensky has been requesting these limitations be lifted. Russia is shelling Kharkiv from its own land. The Russian forces can comfortably gather troops that have infiltrated Ukraine without fear of attacks with Western weapons in the Belgorod region. The Russian supply lines remain unaffected.

Recent remarks from the US administration and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have raised concerns. US Foreign Minister Antony Blinken declared in Moldova that the US will adjust their stance according to the changing battlefield dynamics, ensuring Ukraine's defense. But it's uncertain if Blinken, who's an ardent supporter of stronger Ukraine support, will prevail over President Joe Biden.

Scholz has closely followed Biden's Ukraine policy from the start of the Russian invasion. They're both in agreement regarding weapons supply and targeting decisions. At Tuesday's press conference with Macron, Scholz echoed a different sentiment, denying any laws hindering Ukraine from taking specific measures. "Ukraine has its rights and options under international law," he stated. "There's no requirement we or other European countries imposed that they shouldn't take certain actions," he added. Yet, Scholz reinforced the principle that everything must happen within global legal frameworks.

On Wednesday, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit shed light on the Germany-Ukraine deal, saying, "International law is explicit about Ukraine's right to defend itself, including on Russian territory." However, he also emphasized the existence of a "confidential agreement" that he couldn't disclose due to its confidential nature.

Technically, the law is clear - Ukraine is allowed to defend itself. But politically, it's a murky issue. If it were just a matter of international law, NATO could directly engage in the war.

The idea that "Russia could attack us as soon as we become a party to the war" is an outdated notion from 19th century war thinking, where war wasn't prohibited. However, since the UN Charter was created, there's a widespread ban on aggressive wars. Self-defense is the allowed exception. So, Scholz' reference to international law isn't very instructive in this context. Hebestreit's additional comment suggests the existing agreements with Ukraine haven't changed.

"Clearly, Scholz has established a boundary, says Stefanie Babst. "However, in the heat of combat, Scholz' guidelines haven't withstood the test and have benefited the Russians significantly while putting the Ukrainians at a severe disadvantage." The expert, who previously held a key position at NATO headquarters in Brussels until 2020, chimes in. "Scholz' perception of the world is quite separate from the stark reality of war. His mention of 'agreement' sounds more like he's oblivious to the fact that these accords also determine whether Ukrainian soldiers live or die."

No definite line in the US administration

The argument won't be settled in Prague. There's still no definitive position within the US administration. "There's no change in our strategy," a National Security Council spokesman for the US, John Kirby, stated while Blinken was in Moldova. "We neither endorse nor enable the utilization of US weaponry on Russian soil." At the same time, Kirby mentioned that the US aid had altered if the conditions on the front lines had shifted. "Nonetheless, there are 'no shifts in our strategy,'" he continued.

The landscape has changed due to Russian attacks on Kharkiv - Macron has already drawn conclusions from this. During the press conference with Scholz at Meseberg, he drew out a map of Ukraine to illustrate that Ukraine is under assault from points deep within Russia. "This implies that, if we adhere to the previous guidelines, we're unable to strike the bases from which shells are fired into Ukraine," he explained, indicating Ukraine. "However, we will of course never allow any other spots in Russia, let alone civilian sites, to be targeted."

Scholz didn't challenge this. Instead, he highlighted, "we're dealing with a distinct set of weapons here, as we have different alternatives at our disposal." Additionally, he referred to this. The German-supplied weapons have "a limited, not particularly extended range."

This likely means: For assaults on Russian bases not near the Ukrainian border, the German-provided weapons are not appropriate. To execute attacks on deeper Russian bases, Germany would need to supply Ukraine with the Taurus missile. Scholz has flatly refused this.