“This is insane,” said David Alakhamiya, a member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine’s parliament, emphatically saying what most military experts and analysts have been thinking for years. It has been discussed repeatedly in the Post and in Washington.
Alakhamia led a Ukrainian delegation to Washington, DC last week to meet with senior Biden administration officials and rightly criticized the Pentagon's prohibition on using U.S.-supplied weapons and ammunition to target Russian forces and their equipment massing in assembly areas inside Russia.
Join us on Telegram!
Follow our coverage of the war at @Kyivpost_official.
Ukraine is currently facing a Bastogne-like moment in Kharkiv Oblast. If Kiev had been allowed to intercept these forces in the Belgorod region before launching the offensive, Ukraine could have prevented Russia from seizing about 50 square miles of Ukrainian territory.
In lobbying Biden administration officials and members of Congress to force the U.S. to lift the ban, Alhamiyah doubled down, calling the White House's policy of giving Russia sanctuary “crazy.”
that's right. both strategically and tactically.
Oleksandra Ustinova, head of the Arms and Ammunition Committee of the Ukrainian Parliament, added: [Russia] Please know that there are restrictions on Ukrainians firing on Russian territory. ”
Other interesting topics
Zelensky says Ukraine making 'successes' in northeast
The Russians launched a new attack on Kharkov on May 10 and subsequently captured several smaller settlements in their largest advance in 18 months.
The Biden administration does provide Russian President Vladimir Putin and his military with shelter inside Russia, allowing them to determine the battlefield situation without fear of recourse.
Ukraine's perspective is shared by many of its European allies.
Finland's Defense Minister Antti Hakkenen said in February that his country had no restrictions on what could be done with the weapons Ukraine provided. Jukka Kopra, chairman of the Finnish parliament's defence committee, added that “if necessary, Ukraine should also attack military targets on the Russian side. This is a completely legitimate defensive war that Ukraine is conducting. The UN Charter allows for attacking military targets across land borders.”
The insanity of being unable to escape from a persistent “close race” may serve the Biden administration’s “weakening Russia” strategy, but it will literally kill Ukraine.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Barbock, speaking at the European Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Strasbourg, France, called for providing the Ukrainian military with more long-range weapons to strike targets deep behind the front lines, but inexplicably, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has remained adamant about not committing to supplying Ukraine with long-range Taurus missiles, fearing an escalation.
Meanwhile, President Putin continues to escalate his attacks, including attacks on Ukrainian civilian settlements in the city of Kharkiv and Odessa.
Jean-Louis Bourlange, chairman of the French parliament's foreign affairs committee, took a similar stance. In early May, he called on French leaders to authorize Ukraine to use French-supplied weapons to attack Russian forces, arguing that “the right of self-defense excludes the aggressor's right to territorial integrity.”
But in Washington, it's been a schizophrenic week for the Biden administration. Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon are on different notes, with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan talking about a 2025 counterattack. Taking deterrence to Ukraine off the table is a potential death sentence. Without being able to stop the flow of Russian troops across the border, Kiev cannot win the war, much less mount a counterattack.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his generals must create some breathing room. This is a task that cannot be achieved through constant contact. The madness of being locked into a perpetual “close combat” or Groundhog Day scenario may serve the Biden administration's “weakening Russia” strategy, but it is literally killing Ukraine.
Notably, on Thursday afternoon, Sabrina Singh, the Pentagon's assistant press secretary, made statements that clearly contradicted statements made by Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his visit to Kiev earlier this week.
When asked about the US position on Ukraine attacking targets inside Russia with US-made weapons, she replied: We believe that the equipment and capabilities we are providing to Ukraine should be used to reclaim Ukraine's sovereign territory. ”
Singh stressed that although Russia is massing troops and equipment across the border to use in an attack on Kharkiv, the full use of its weapons – and therefore its capabilities – will be made “within Ukrainian territory.”
“The United States is committed to helping Ukraine win this war,” Blinken told reporters in a joint interview with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on Wednesday, adding, “While we do not encourage or enable aggression outside of Ukraine, ultimately Ukraine must decide for itself how it wages this war. This war is being waged to defend Ukraine's freedom, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to support Ukraine with the equipment it needs to succeed and to win.”
His comments appeared to give Ukraine the green light to block Russian forces massing on the other side of the border. Earlier this month, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron reaffirmed Britain's support for Ukraine and backed its use of British-supplied weapons, including Storm Shadow, to attack targets inside Russia.
Foggy Bottom also doesn't seem to be able to keep the story straight. In late March, when asked about Ukraine's targeting of a Russian oil company, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters that “Ukraine does not encourage or support attacks outside its territory.” “It has always been our position since the beginning of this war that we will not…that is a fact.” This is a long-standing policy that we have made clear to the Ukrainian government that they would not do such a thing and they would not know about it. ”
The Biden administration's Ukraine defense strategy is not working and is putting Kharkiv and Kiev at risk. They need to embrace General George S. Patton's perspective that “no one has ever successfully defended anything; there is only attack, attack, and attack some more.”
Ukraine needs authorization to use U.S. and NATO weapons systems to attack targets inside Russia after the fact.
Blinken's announcement last week of an additional $2 billion in military aid to Ukraine, while welcome and necessary to stop the bleeding, is more of the same in practice. Even Sullivan acknowledged that it was about “holding the line” and that additional funds are needed. It's one thing to want Ukraine to win, and another to allow Ukraine to win. Half measures won't work, and Ukraine needs “deeds, not words.”
Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general, argues that while Congressional support is necessary, it is not enough to reverse the “deteriorating situation in Ukraine.” He said the United States must “loosen the handcuffs on Mr. Zelenskiy and allow him to use the weapons and equipment we provide.”
Former National Security Advisor and retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster agreed, arguing that “it's past time to give Ukraine what it needs.”
Renowned military analyst Seth Jones reminds us that “without a clear U.S. strategy and a continued supply of Western weapons, intelligence and training, Putin could win.” I let it happen.
Ukraine needs authorization to use U.S. and NATO weapons systems to attack targets inside Russia after the fact. A single word could make or break the war for Ukraine: Deterrence: Destroy an enemy's surface military capabilities before they can be effectively used against friendly forces or achieve any other objectives. Acts that divert, impede, delay, or destroy surface military capabilities.
If the Biden administration can’t get its schizophrenia under control by abandoning its defensive strategy, Zelensky and his generals should call it what it really is: a self-defense strike to defeat an immediate threat to Ukrainian forces and civilians, as appears to be working for U.S. Central Command in the Middle East.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Kyiv Post.
Copyright 2024. Jonathan E. Sweet and Mark C. Toth. All rights reserved.
Jonathan Sweet
Army Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet (@JESweet2022) spent 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His career includes service with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Military Intelligence Operations Division from 2012 until 2014.
mark toth
Mark Toth (@MCTothSTL) writes about national security and foreign policy. A former economist and entrepreneur, he has worked in banking, insurance, publishing, and international commerce. He is a former board member of the St. Louis World Trade Center and has served in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world.
