Scholz adopts a similar tone to Macron, but his policies remain unaltered.

Scholz may resemble Macron's tone, but no significant transformations have occurred.

The question of whether Ukraine can attack military targets in Russia using Western weapons is a topic of debate, with France's President Macron giving a clear answer while discussions continue within the US government. Germany's Chancellor Scholz is yet to provide a definitive answer, instead referring to the range of arms supplied by his country.

During the NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Prague, the potential for Ukraine to attack Russian military targets with Western weapons may come under discussion. However, no official decision is expected as the gathering is of an informal nature and primarily focused on preparing for the NATO summit in Washington in July.

There is a divided stance on this issue within NATO. While the United States and Germany have imposed restrictions on Ukraine's use of their weapons against Russian targets, countries like Sweden, Poland, the Baltic republics, and France view things differently and allow the Ukrainians to actively engage in combat on Russian territory.

For attacks on targets inside Russia, Ukraine depends on its own homegrown weapons. The American and German restrictions, says former NATO employee Stefanie Babst, would lead to a situation where the Ukrainian military is compelled to continue fighting without the benefit of Western arms.

With Russia opening a new front against Ukraine in the Kharkiv region and shelling Kharkiv from Russian territory, President Volodymyr Zelensky has called for the removal of these limitations. The situation has become urgent, as Russia's troops, supposedly infiltrated into Ukrainian territory, can now gather without fear of lethal retaliation.

Legally, Ukraine has the means to respond, according to Babst, but there has been cause for concern with recent statements from the US government and German Chancellor Scholz. While US Foreign Minister Antony Blinken suggested adapting their stance based on the battlefield situation, Scholz seemingly backtracked on previously imposed restrictions. In a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, the German Chancellor said Ukraine has "all the legal options for what it does," and that there have "never been any demands" from Europe or other friendly countries for Ukraine to limit its actions.

Despite this apparent change in tone, Scholz also mentioned the existence of "regulations" that stipulate Ukraine must act within the framework of international law. Although international law allows for self-defense, it's not clear whether Western countries are willing to provide explicit permission for Ukrainian military action against Russian targets.

German Government Spokesman Steffen Hebestreit later clarified Scholz's remarks, stating that the German Chancellor was referring to "the fact that international law is clear about the rights and options of Ukraine in terms of defending itself." Hebestreit also brought up the issue of a "confidential agreement" between Germany and Ukraine regarding the use of weapons provided by Germany.

The confusion surrounding Scholz's statement raises questions about whether or not Ukraine can now engage in direct military action against military targets in Russia with weapons supplied by Germany. While international law claims that Ukraine has the right to defend itself due to Russia's aggression, the practicality of this remains a political question.

Currently, a general ban on war exists due to the UN Charter, with offensive wars being illegal and self-defense permitted. Scholz's reference to international law offers little clarity, as the use of Western arms by Ukraine remains a political decision. The recent statements by the US and German governments suggest an ongoing debate over Ukraine's capability to engage in offensive military actions against Russian targets.

Stefanie Babst comments, "It's a red-line statement from Chancellor Scholz, but on the battlefield, his rules haven't held up. Instead, these conditions have given the Russians major military advantages and caused significant disadvantages for the Ukrainians." Babst, who was previously in a top position at NATO headquarters in Brussels until 2020, expresses concern over the chancellor's worldview being worlds apart from the brutal reality of war. Her critique seems to suggest that by using words like "agreement," Scholz hasn't grasped the fact that these agreements may determine the fate of Ukrainian soldiers' lives and deaths.

Regarding Germany's approach, there will be no definitive answer at the Prague meeting. The confusion within the US government also remains, with the National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, stating, "There's no change in our policy. We're not endorsing or facilitating the use of US weapons on Russian soil." However, he added that the type of American aid to Ukraine could change depending on the evolving situation. Kirby also clarified, "There's no change in our approach."

Things have shifted after the Russian attacks in Kharkiv. Macron has already taken note of this and spoken out about it during a press conference with Scholz in Meseberg. Macron pulled out a map of Ukraine to illustrate that the attacks are originating from deep within Russian territory. "If we stick to the previous rules, we can't retaliate against the bases from which the shells are launched into Ukraine," he stressed, implying that such rules would not allow for strikes against Ukrainian territories. "However, we won't allow any other sites in Russia or civilian areas to be attacked," Macron added.

Scholz didn't dispute this, but instead reiterated, "We're discussing very different kinds of weapons here, since we have different options at our disposal." This likely means that the weapons German authorities have on hand are inadequate for striking Russian bases that are far from the Ukrainian border. To counter this, Germany would need to provide Ukraine with the Taurus missile, but Scholz has categorically rejected this proposal.