As Ukraine’s second-largest city prepares for a new Russian offensive, a growing number of NATO allies are backing kyiv’s pleas to allow its forces to carry out attacks on Russian territory with Western weapons.
President Biden decided to allow Ukraine to use US weapons against military targets in Russia to mitigate the Kharkiv offensive, days after Canada decided to allow the use of weapons it has supplied. More than a dozen have granted similar permission to Ukraine.
The United States, the most important supplier of weapons to Ukraine, had been reluctant to take the step, worried about provoking Russia into an escalation that could draw in NATO and trigger a broader war. Without Washington’s approval, US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) can only attack Russian targets inside Ukraine.
However, many Western military leaders and analysts say that with Russia massing thousands of troops on its side of the border (less than 20 miles from the northeastern city of Kharkiv), Ukraine urgently needs the authority to strike inside Russia with Western weapons. . President Biden’s permission is intended only for Ukraine to attack military sites in Russia being used for the Kharkiv offensive, U.S. officials said.
“Russian commanders are well aware of Ukraine’s inability to fight back,” Peter Dickinson, a Ukraine analyst at the Atlantic Council in Washington, wrote in an analysis published before Biden’s policy change.
Officials and experts say launching missiles toward Russia, attacking its troops, bases, airfields and supply lines, could pay immediate dividends. In fact, the Ukrainian military already appears to be preparing to launch some initial attacks, “to test the Russian response,” Rafael Loss, a weapons expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview Thursday.
Ukraine and NATO allies have been reluctant to take the risk of changing tactics without U.S. approval, Loss said. “Ultimately, the United States would bear much of the burden of responding if there were significant escalation by Russia, for example, against NATO territory.”
Below is a summary of which countries have already given Ukraine permission to use its weapons on Russian territory and those that have not, and the likely impact if Ukraine is granted the freedom to take the fight to Russia.
Those who support the attacks on Russian soil
Any country that provides weapons to Ukraine has the right to prescribe how they are used, and so far Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Poland have expressed their support. Ukraine attacks military targets on Russian soil.
Some nations are more cautious than others. Germany and Sweden, for example, conditioned their approval only “within the framework of international law,” as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz put it Tuesday. He was detailing a requirement that other countries have also maintained for the past two years to arm Ukraine, although they have not expressed it as prominently.
Britain was among the first to advocate easing restrictions. “Ukraine has that right,” Foreign Secretary David Cameron said during a visit to kyiv on May 3. “Just as Russia is attacking inside Ukraine, you can totally understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it defends itself.”
The movement gained momentum when vigorous support from President Emmanuel Macron of France helped persuade a more reluctant Germany to reconsider its position this week. “It’s as if we are telling them: ‘We are giving you weapons, but you can’t use them to defend yourself,'” Macron said in Berlin this week, with Scholz at his side.
Those calling for a “prudent” approach
Several countries – Belgium, Italy and, so far, the United States – have said they were unwilling to allow Ukraine to use its weapons to attack targets inside Russia, citing the risks, which may be difficult to anticipate. For example, recent Ukrainian attacks with its own drones against Russia’s nuclear early warning radar systems, a potentially destabilizing step, have raised deep concerns in Washington.
On Monday, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni of Italy said NATO allies “must be very cautious” before Western weapons are used on Russian territory. A day later, Prime Minister Alexander De Croo of Belgium announced the donation of 30 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, but only “for use by the Ukrainian Defense Forces on Ukrainian territory.”
In Washington, a White House spokesperson maintained Tuesday that the Biden administration would not “encourage or permit” the use of American weapons on Russian soil. But that resistance softened in the face of growing pressure from its allies, when Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken suggested the next day that the United States could “adapt and adjust” its posture based on battlefield conditions.
The Biden administration has a long history of resisting Ukrainian requests for more powerful weapons, only to cave in under pressure and when Ukraine’s prospects appeared to weaken. This happened with ATACM missile systems, Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighter jets, among other weapons.
But in a small number of cases, the United States has allowed Ukrainian troops to use Patriot air defense missiles to shoot down Russian fighter jets operating in Russian airspace, a senior Biden administration official said.
The likely impact
With permission already granted, Ukraine can attack Russia with Storm Shadow missiles supplied by Britain and France’s closely related SCALP missiles. The missiles have a range of about 150 miles and are fired from Ukraine’s aging fleet of Soviet-designed fighter jets.
Several countries (Britain, Germany, Norway and the United States) have provided Ukraine with ground-based launchers that can fire longer-range missiles. Those systems are known as HIMARS and MLRS launchers, and they can also fire the United States’ ATACMS, missiles that have a range of up to 190 miles.
“If they give the green light to the use of ATACMS, that could degrade Russia’s ability to use its territory as a sanctuary for ground operations,” Loss said.
(So far, Germany has refused to donate its Taurus missile, with a range of 310 miles, partly out of fear that it will be fired deep into Russia and escalate the war. Now it is even less likely to do so, Mr. Loss. saying.)
In addition, Britain, Canada and the United States have supplied Ukraine with medium-range missiles or small-diameter ground bombs that can reach Russia at a distance of 50 to 90 miles.
But the new authorizations may have their biggest impact in the war for air superiority, especially if allies allow their donated planes and drones to attack within Russian airspace.
It is unclear whether Denmark or the Netherlands would allow the F-16s they send to Ukraine to fly over Russian territory, where they could be shot down. In comments this week, Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren appeared not to impose specific limits on weapons delivered by the Netherlands. “Ukrainian attacks on Russian soil are something I have never ruled out,” she said.
At least four other countries (Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and North Macedonia) have provided Soviet-era fighter jets. Britain and Türkiye have sent long-range attack drones that could also fly directly to Russia.
At the very least, Loss said, the soon-arriving fleet of F-16s will come equipped with long-range missiles that could target Russian aircraft “from behind their border,” with implications for Ukraine’s future air power.
“We are not there yet,” he said, noting that Ukrainian pilots have yet to master the fighter jet with enough skill to counter Russia’s advantage. “But there is some possibility that Ukraine’s future F-16 fleet will attack Russian territory.”
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from San Francisco, and Eduardo Wong from Prague.