Amid gridlock in Congress and delays in European production, Ukraine’s allies must think creatively
10 April 2024 •
The US recently sent Ukraine its first batch of new long-range precision bombs with the potential to strike deep within Russian-occupied territory. Despite the weapons’ extended range, however, Ukraine won’t be able to use them to hit military targets inside Russia itself. Why? The US won’t allow it out of fear that American weapons taking out targets within Russia could escalate the conflict.
From American bombs to British and French cruise missiles, Kyiv’s Western partners provide their most potent weapons on the condition that Ukraine only use them within its own borders (including Crimea; the Ukrainian peninsula occupied by Russia since 2014). This restriction is a mistake, and one easily remedied by simply informing Ukraine that it has been lifted. Amid gridlock in Congress and delays in European ammunition production, Kyiv’s Western allies can help Ukraine overnight with this one change in policy.
Limiting Kyiv’s use of Western weapons puts Ukraine in a difficult position because the missiles hitting Ukrainian cities are often launched over Russian territory by planes taking off from airfields inside Russia. The same is true for Russia’s one-way attack drones, which depart bases in Russia only to crash into Ukrainian apartment buildings and explode on impact.
Restricting Ukraine’s use of Western munitions doesn’t entirely prevent strikes inside Russia, but it pushes Kyiv to use more unconventional means – drones, vehicle-borne bombs, and sabotage. Ukraine also uses a limited supply of old, and less precise, Soviet missiles. But Kyiv’s one-way attack drones move slower than Western missiles and bombs, which can make them more vulnerable to Russian air defenses. And when debris from intercepted drones falls on Russian cities, it feeds Putin’s propaganda machine. Clearly, more precise Western weaponry will reduce collateral damage in Russia, and reduce civilian casualties.
While Ukraine is working hard to develop its own long range missiles, it will take time for them to be ready for widespread use on the battlefield. Meanwhile, Western weapons have proven effective when used on Russian military bases in occupied Ukrainian territory, where Kyiv has permission to use munitions like US-supplied ATACMS and cruise missiles from France and the UK. Strikes with these weapons have leveled Russia’s Black Sea Fleet headquarters, wrecked a Russian submarine, and destroyed dozens of Russian helicopters. In response, the Kremlin has moved several of its valuable warships and aircraft out of occupied Ukraine and into bases and ports in Russia.
Restrictions on Kyiv’s use of Western weapons are a gift of particular value to Moscow because Russia has far more aircraft than they have hangars to hold them. This leaves valuable military planes and helicopters out in the open. The Kremlin knows that many of its aircraft are vulnerable to Ukrainian strikes, which is why Moscow’s forces have taken to painting flat aircraft decoys at their air bases. These decoys don’t look very convincing when viewed in high-resolution satellite imagery, but they could mislead Ukrainian attack drones reliant on basic cameras. Advanced Western weapons are less likely to have this issue.
Western officials worry that their weapons being used on Russian territory will lead to escalation – even “Armageddon”– or feed into Putin’s propaganda machine, which paints Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine as a war against the West. But fears of such escalation are unfounded. Russia already claims, without publishing evidence, that Western munitions have been used in attacks on targets inside Russian territory.
When explosions rocked the Russian city of Belgorod late last year, the Kremlin baselessly blamed Ukraine’s use of Czech-supplied weapons. When a transport plane was shot down over Russian airspace, the Kremlin asserted that a US-supplied air defense system was used. Meanwhile, Russia has not hesitated to lob North Korean missiles and Iranian drones at Ukraine. Russian missiles have also violated the airspace of Poland – a Nato member– before striking Ukraine.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war and Kyiv’s victory against the increasingly dangerous Putin is critical for the security of Europe, of Nato, and of the United States. But aid to support that victory has consistently come a day late and a weapon system short. Ukraine will have a difficult year fending off Russian attacks while building the capacity to retake occupied territory. Putin has made it clear that he has no interest in negotiations. Western partners should trust Ukraine to protect its citizens and not risk its allies with the weapons we provide.
Selected comments from DT readers :
J.Finnemore
Obviously the Kremlin don’t like the idea of Western supplied weapons being used against Russia.
If that’s the case, a top tip is don’t start a war in the first place.
Graham Boyd
Sounds like a perfectly good idea. Russia’s air defense in abysmal. And in what other war has the invader ever got away with “we’re going to destroy your territory but you can’t touch ours because we’ll be really cross”?
Ukraine is offering to destroy the Russian threat on behalf of all of us. Either we help them do it now, or we do it ourselves in a few years time.
Up The North
Couldn’t agree more. We should supply ukraine with the eeapns to let ukraine repay Russia in full. Once orks start seeing the damage modern weapons do they might think about letting their corrupt lying government negotiations to end this are preferable.
Peter Brookes
So the Ukrainians are fighting our war against Russia whilst we leave our own back door open in our own country to a host of potential threats. Murders, stabbings, rapes, robberies etc are common place in our inner cities and will spread to the leafy suburbs as years go by destroying the very cohesiveness my grandparents fought German nationalism and Japanese imperialism.
Why the hell can’t the UK and US close their borders to protect its own citizens? Then we can fully address Russia. I guess I must be a ‘redneck ‘
Troll:
Jaroslav Gottwald
The idea that the whole world must endlessly support Ukraine and keep the killing going on is crazy. Why the West is not pushing for peace talks, why only more weapons is the only possibility? I think that not a single soldier in the trenches on both sides wants this war to continue. Only politicians do!
Jim Cameron
Reply to Jaroslav Gottwald
Russia wants all of Ukraine and more (watch Russian tv). They also on a daily basis commit war crimes. So what would you do?
A.N. Idiot writes :
Ealing Ealing
I’m 72 uears old. Throughout my lifetime, when there were people in Government who had actually had experience of war, the idea of any hot conflict, directly or indirectly, between nuclear powers was utterly unthinkable, because it would be a gamble on the future of the human race.
People who had lived through wars knew only too well how the law of unintended consequences often led from an apparently innocuous first step (“they’re just advisors, they haven’t been sent to fight the enemy”) led inexorably to escalating conflict and an appalling loss of life.
It is finally being accepted, however reluctantly, that Ukraine cannot beat Russia without a massive increase in assistance, both military and financial, from the West, essentially from the Americans. Who are proving to be less keen to send more dollars to Ukraine than Europeans wish.
Either we start focusing on a diplomatic solution, or we risk absolutely everything, over a country which is evidently rampantly corrupt and just as bad as Russia in all material aspects.
Thomas Glover
Reply to Ealing Ealing
If you honestly think Ukraine is as bad as Russia in all material aspects I’m afraid you haven’t been paying attention, and have already forgotten who invaded who at the start of all this.
Edward Danczak
The Ukraine was Russia’s armoury during the days of CCCP. Their military and engineers are world class, original thinkers and very competent.
As an example, their Neptune anti-ship missiles sank the impregnable Moscow, and followed up by ensuring that the Black Sea fleet has moved as far east as possible.
Drone strikes both from the air and sea have proved effective anti-ship weapons, and at relatively low cost. Demanding missiles that cost millions to give some kind of extended range is ill informed.
Already Ukraine drones are flying into Russian refineries and arms factories from over 1000 miles away. They have been so successful in fuel and refinery interdictions that Russia is now trying to import petrol to supplement its damaged refining capacity.
Ukraine requires basics in the home battlefield, particularly ammunition such as that for M777 howitzers. The production outlook on the automated US and U.K. lines has improved. Logistics and production determine an army capacity, the winter has given the West and Ukraine time to reinforce while causing persistent haemorrhage of Russian military personnel and materiel.
The losses to date in Russian weapons are enormous: all of the original invasion tanks and armoured personnel vehicles have been destroyed together with all of the artillery pieces. In manpower terms the original invading army has been destroyed amounting to a half million soldiers. Attrition at this level is unsustainable, but anyone who thinks it will all be over quickly is mistaken.
David Stainer
Makes good sense to me Brady.
Whether we allow Ukraine to use Western/NATO weapons inside Russia or not Putin will twist everything, lie and feed anti West anti NATO propaganda to his captive audience anyway. He has complete control of all the media inside Russia and with his lies and clever manipulation of any situation to his agenda he’s a master of the propaganda war.
If Putin conquers all of Ukraine or just holds onto what he’s already occupying he won’t stop, unless he’s stopped by a stronger force.
Ukraine has not asked us to fight their war all they have ever asked for is the weapons to do the job as it’s not just in Ukraine’s interest but all of free Europe and Scandinavia and in the longer run the US as well.
If Biden and NATO had put a marker down before Putin moved in February 2022 and told Putin quietly behind closed doors but in no uncertain terms if he entered Ukraine, NATO would defend Ukraine will all its force. I doubt Putin would have invaded it wouldn’t have been worth the risk for him. He gambled and correctly that NATO wouldn’t stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine.
It’s easier to stop a war before it starts than stop it after it has started.
“Demanding missiles that cost millions to give some kind of extended range is ill informed.
Already Ukraine drones are flying into Russian refineries and arms factories from over 1000 miles away.”
It’s very questionable if Ukraine could ever produce a drone that can destroy hardened targets, like bridges. And this is essential to cut roach supply lines. Drones can do a lot of damage, but missiles are better. If Ukraine could get more support in drone production, especially large ones, then destroying large, far-away targets like factories and refineries could be done more effectively and with greater frequencies. Nevertheless, handing over missiles is never ill-informed. Ukraine should get the best of what we have and in sufficient numbers.