[ad_1]
Blinken, during a visit to Moldova on Wednesday, became the first senior Biden administration official to publicly indicate that Washington is considering a policy shift that would allow Ukrainian forces to use longer-range ATACMS missiles and other U.S. weapons to attack positions inside Russia.
Blinken said the United States may “adapt and adjust” its position on the restrictions based on evolving battlefield needs.
“We’re going to make sure that [Ukraine] has the equipment it needs,” Blinken told reporters in the Moldovan capital, Chisinau. “And another hallmark of our support for Ukraine over these now more than two years has been to adapt. As the conditions have changed, as the battlefield has changed, as what Russia does has changed in terms of how it’s pursuing its aggression, escalation, we’ve adapted and adjusted, too.”
Blinken made the remarks before arriving here in the Czech capital for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers where the United States is expected to come under renewed pressure to loosen its restrictions on Ukraine’s rules of engagement.
Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky said Thursday that allies are heading toward an agreement on strikes in Russian territory. “We are moving on that in the international sphere,” he said. “The aggressor is Russia.”
Lipavsky’s remarks add to a steady drum beat of Western officials pushing Washington to a more aggressive posture.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a recent interview with the Economist that the time has come for allies to rethink their restrictions. “Especially now when a lot of the fighting is going on in Kharkiv, close to the border, to deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves.”
In the days since, a series of allies, including France, have echoed the sentiment. President Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday that Ukrainians must be allowed to “neutralize” military sites from which missiles are fired, but not other targets. “We’re not being escalatory by doing this.”
Dutch Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the same day that restrictions on weapons use have left Kyiv fighting “with one hand tied behind its back.” Lifting these limits “should not be a subject of debate,” she said.
In a visit to Kyiv this month, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron said Ukraine has the right to use London-provided weapons to strike targets in Russia. “Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself.”
By the eve of the NATO meeting, Canada and Finland had also signaled support.
Although Moscow claims that five regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, are Russian territory, it is highly sensitive to the increasing calls to allow Ukraine to use Western weapons to strike military targets within Russia itself. Accusing NATO of “unending escalation,” President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday warned this could lead to “serious consequences.”
In a sign of the Kremlin’s anxiety, Putin hinted that Russia could use nuclear strikes against small European nations if NATO allowed Ukraine to attack what he called “deep in Russian territory.” He warned that NATO officials … “should be fully aware of what is at stake.”
“If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell,” he said, referring to U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. “Are they looking for a global conflict?”
The Russian tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets featured a column Thursday declaring Putin’s remarks “a completely unambiguous ultimatum” to the West.
Putin said that any such use of long-range missiles would prove NATO’s direct involvement in the war. He also claimed that the targets for some Western missiles were already being set by Britain, not Ukraine, and that NATO crews had transmitted to Ukraine coordinates for ATACMS strikes.
The United States began providing ATAMCS missiles to Ukraine this spring on the condition that they not be used to strike inside Russia — a stipulation designed to prevent an unintended escalation that could result in a catastrophic military confrontation between Moscow and Washington.
But Biden’s risk appetite may change — as it has on several other occasions over the course of the war when he decided to expand Ukraine’s arsenal with Stinger missiles, HIMARS launchers, advanced missile defense systems, drones, helicopters, M1 Abrams tanks and fourth-generation fighter jets.
While revealing that a change of course is under consideration, U.S. officials said the White House hasn’t made a decision. The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss military matters, said Blinken’s comments carefully reflect where the administration is in the policymaking process. In public, Blinken rarely gets ahead of where the president is comfortable going, the officials said.
After Blinken’s comments, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby reiterated administration policy against attacks on Russian soil using U.S. weapons but left open the possibility that it could change.
“Our support to Ukraine has evolved appropriately as the battlefield conditions have evolved, and that’s not going to change, but right now, there’s also no change to our policy,” he said.
With the restrictions on U.S. support for cross-border attacks Ukraine has been using its own long-range attack drones to hit Russian civilian and military targets. But those aircraft have payload limitations and are not as effective.
U.S. officials remain concerned about Ukrainian cross-border attacks on Russian territory, including the targeting of oil refineries and nuclear early–warning systems, fearing that they could dangerously unsettle Moscow. Washington conveyed its concerns to Kyiv about two attempted attacks over the past week against radar stations that provide conventional air defense as well as warning of nuclear launches by the West. At least one strike in Armavir, in Russia’s southeastern Krasnodar region, appeared to have caused some damage.
Russia’s advances have also spurred discussion between allies about sending military trainers to Ukraine — another move long seen as potentially escalatory. But conditions on the battlefield seem to have convinced some allies that it makes sense to take the training closer to Ukraine’s troops, allowing them to move more quickly and easily to the front line afterward.
In February, Macron surprised many by suggesting that “nothing should be ruled out” when it comes to sending trainers to Ukraine, but he did not offer concrete details.
Ukraine’s top general, Oleksandr Syrsky, announced this week that Ukraine and France had signed an agreement for French soldiers to train troops on Ukrainian soil, then quickly walked it back, saying the issue was still up for discussion.
But French officials pointedly did not deny that talks were advancing, leading to speculation that an announcement on some sort of training mission could come soon.
Any training, NATO diplomats stressed, would be organized between member states and Ukraine bilaterally, not by NATO itself, which has kept official distance from the war.
Biden has long ruled out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. Whether that prohibition falls by the wayside like his other red lines remains to be seen.
Dixon reported from Riga, Latvia.
[ad_2]
Source link
