Biden Needs to Untie Ukraine's Restraints

"Joe Biden should cease restraining Ukraine"

Ukraine's military strength is weakening due to the West's claim that their weapons should not be used on Russian land. However, this stance is starting to falter in America, potentially increasing Ukraine's defensive capabilities.

Will the morale of Ukrainian soldiers, who are feeling immense pressure, be lifted if US Secretary of State Antony Blinken strums a guitar during his visit to Kiev? It's doubtful. But Blinken is now supporting Kiev on a matter that might significantly affect its survival and make a real difference on the front line.

As per a New York Times report, Blinken sparked a debate within the White House following his journey to Ukraine. He is concerned about removing the rule that Ukraine can only use Western weapons on or above its land. This regulation was imposed from the start, no matter the weapon - from armored personnel carriers to anti-aircraft systems or F16 fighter jets.

This restriction is not required or covered by international law. International law states that the country defending itself has the right to defend itself. Whether this defense occurs on its own land or enemy territory doesn't matter. Regardless, this constraint appeared arbitrary to legal scholars from the outset.

Security expert Nico Lange believes the restraint on utilization of Western weapons to be "militarily completely pointless." "In war, military targets must be attacked," he explains. "If you're being attacked by aircraft launched from Russian soil, the best course of action is to strike at the airbases from which these aircraft take off." This logic applies to fighter jets, artillery shells, and missiles. It's more effective to incapacitate the system and its logistics rather than defend against an active weapon. It's also more cost-effective, as one successful strike on a missile launcher can prevent the use of numerous missiles.

Political scientist Carlo Masala has been explaining for months how restricting Ukraine to its own territory has been impeding the effectiveness of their Western weapons usage: "We're forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back." The U.S. is arming Ukraine with missiles capable of flying 77, 170, and 300 kilometers (HIMARS, ATACMS, respectively). However, the range limitation prevents these weapons from realizing their full potential.

It's unclear why this policy was implemented. Western countries haven't given any solid reasons. The concern about NATO involvement seems to be one reason, but that question doesn't need to be answered through attacks on Russian soil. Another fear is that a Russian defeat could lead to unrest, putting the West at risk. Nevertheless, scientist Lange believes this fear is unjustified. Horror stories about Russian President Vladimir Putin losing power, plunging his country into chaos, and potentially causing chaos in the West are likely Russian propaganda.

Lange emphasizes that the West's influence on events in Russia has been overestimated. "Those who believe that Putin must have at least a part of Ukraine to keep Russia stable are buying into Russian propaganda," he warns.

It seems that some decision-makers in Western countries have finally started to understand this: the restrictions have come with disastrous consequences in the field. While the Ukrainian military has been employing its own drones against Russia's infrastructure for a while, it has yet to harness the true capabilities of U.S. weapons. It's also unable to meet the demand for its own drone production.

"The consequences of the restriction weren't really contemplated in the abstract until now," Lange says. "Now, some decision-makers are finally looking for the first time and realizing: it's nonsensical to wait until the enemy crosses the border. You need to be able to confront them beforehand."

Last week, Secretary of State Blinken's visit to Ukraine was likely filled with somber thoughts. He's currently collaborating with Biden's inner circle members to soften the US ban on providing military aid to Ukraine. The goal is to let the Ukrainians attack Russian missile and artillery systems that are past the border. However, there's a chance that certain oil refineries farther away might remain under constraints.

Blinken's endeavor has also earned support from Republicans, such as Representative Michael McCaul. He claimed, "The Biden administration has provided the Putin regime with a safe haven where they can kill Ukrainians without any consequences." McCaul urged, "President Biden must stop crippling Ukraine's hands and terminate this policy immediately."

The distinguished Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessed that this policy has given Russia a substantial safe haven for its ground forces during its invasion and deployed long-range missiles to further support its operation. The ISW recommends, "It should be altered without hesitation."

The White House might draw inspiration from their British counterparts. They eased their limitations, including those on the advanced Storm Shadow cruise missile, some time ago - without much ado. During his recent trip to Ukraine, Foreign Secretary David Cameron asserted that Kiev possessed the "right to retaliate against Russia."

Political scientist Lange suggests that these discussions shouldn't happen anymore. By providing weapons and ammunition to Ukraine for its defense campaign, the West is simply supporting it per international law. The Ukrainians' decision on how and where to use their arsenal is solely their business, according to Lange. This stance by western supporters would empower the Ukrainians to fight swiftly with what they have, effectively wielding both hands.