Western Weapons for Attacks on Russia

Will Ukraine Receive Permission from Partners?

Ivan Sichen

One of the main tasks of the warring parties during any war is to disrupt the logistics of the enemy’s troops at the front, undermine its economic potential and demoralize the population in the rear. All this fully applies to the full-scale aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Thus, since the beginning of the attack on Ukraine in 2022, the Russian armed forces have been carrying out systematic strikes on Ukrainian territory using missiles and UAVs. Their targets are mostly objects of civil infrastructure, which gives Moscow’s actions a frankly terrorist character.

Of course, Ukraine does not leave the enemy’s air attacks unanswered and retaliates with its own strikes. Unfortunately, Ukraine’s capabilities are still not sufficient to cause really significant damage to Russia with tangible consequences for it. This situation can be changed with Western countries’ allowing Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons against military targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. Obtaining such permission is the main priority of political and diplomatic efforts of Ukraine at this stage.

For its part, Russia defines the above-mentioned issue as a critical “red line” for it and exerts pressure on the West in order to prevent its crossing. At the same time, as in cases with other “’red lines”, Ukraine and its partners are gradually overcoming Russia’s resistance. Let’s hope that Ukraine will get the opportunity to destroy the aggressor on its own territory with long-range Western weapons.

To begin with, let’s recall the history of the raised issue, which will allow us to better understand the current developments and determine the prospects of Western countries granting Ukraine permission to use their weapons on targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. Thus, as part of the confrontation with Ukraine and the West, Russia constantly draws various “red lines” and threatens to give a tough response, including the use of military force and even nuclear weapons.

The first of such “red lines” was announced by Russia after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004. Then V. Putin openly expressed his intentions to seize Crimea in case of real prospects of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Alliance. At this, Russia began to threaten the USA and Europe and resorted to methods of military and energy blackmail, which were accompanied by demonstrations of force and creation of problems in the supply of Russian natural gas to European countries. Then the West succumbed to pressure from Russia and refused to grant Ukraine the NATO’s Membership Action Plan.

Moscow’s next “red line”’ became its demands regarding the inadmissibility of the NATO’s military infrastructure and strike weapons approaching Russia’s borders. However, Russia’s attack on Ukraine in 2014 was perceived by the West as a threat to its own security, which forced NATO to reject Russia’s demands and begin building up its military presence in the countries of Central-Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

Later, Russia demanded from NATO to give up further enlargement and return to the situation of 1999, that is, to exclude the countries of Central-Eastern Europe and the Baltic States from the North Atlantic Alliance. Those “red lines” were the basis of the December 2021 ultimatum of the Russian Federation. Of course, such Russian claims were rejected by both the US/NATO leadership and Ukraine. In response, Russia launched a full-scale war against Ukraine. At the same time, new demands related to the war against Ukraine were added to the already declared “red lines”.

Thus, at first Russia insisted on the inadmissibility of transferring large-caliber artillery and armored vehicles to Ukraine from its Western partners; then air defense systems, especially long-range ones; then — long-range and high-precision missile and artillery systems; and finally — F-16 aircrafts.

At each of the mentioned stages, Russia again blackmailed the USA, NATO and the EU threatening to use military force, but did nothing in reality. Instead, the supply of Western weapons allowed Ukraine to disrupt the Russian “blitzkrieg”, free part of its territories and prevent the enemy’s strategic breakthroughs at the front.

Contrary to Russia’s “red lines” defined in the above-mentioned ultimatum, Finland and Sweden joined the North Atlantic Alliance in 2023–2024, which brought NATO’s military infrastructure and strike weapons closer to the borders of the Russian Federation. Relations between Ukraine and NATO reached a qualitatively new level. Moreover, Western weapons are actively used by Ukraine against the Russian invaders.

This dealt a powerful blow to the interests of the Russian Federation. For the rulers of the Kremlin, ensuring the security and inviolability of the territory of the Russian Federation remains a fundamental issue. Therefore, Moscow makes every possible effort to prevent Ukraine from using long-range Western weapons directly on the territory of Russia. In particular, according to V. Putin’s statement, granting the relevant permission to Ukraine would mean “direct participation of NATO in the war with Russia. With this in mind, Russia will make the necessary decisions, depending on the threats it faces”. In turn, Speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation V. Volodin proposed “to move to the use of more powerful and destructive weapons to protect our security”.

Indeed, getting the above-mentioned permission by Ukraine would give it the opportunity to strike at the important enemy targets, including: airfields, positions of anti-aircraft and operational-tactical missile systems, training centers of the Russian troops, defense enterprises, relevant transport and energy infrastructure. This would allow Ukraine to resolve important operational-tactical and strategic tasks, such as:

• undermining V. Putin’s positions and, in general, those of the ruling elite of Russia due to their inability not only to prevent strikes on Russian territory, but to prevent their expansion either;
• improving the position of Ukrainian troops at the front by disrupting the logistics of the enemy’s troops, complicating the maneuverability of its units and supply of reserves, redeployment of Russian aviation bases further from the combat zone;
• increasing the ability of Ukrainian missiles and UAVs to break through the enemy’s air defense in operational-tactical depth;
• weakening the enemy’s ability to strike the front and rear areas of Ukraine with the use of anti-aircraft and operational-tactical missile systems;
• strengthening Ukraine’s position in the Black Sea region by further weakening the potential of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, destroying the remnants of its ships and naval bases;
• increasing tension in Russian society due to the evacuation of the population of Russian regions adjacent to Ukraine deep into the country’s territory.

Achieving such results would create favorable conditions for Ukraine to change the situation at the front in its favor and (in case of obtaining a sufficient number of strike weapons) a turning point in the war.

Ukraine’s Western partners understand such prospects, but have so far refrained from making relevant decisions. Currently, they justify their hesitations with the desire to avoid the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian war and a military confrontation with Russia. Although in reality, the leaders of most Western countries still cannot get rid of the perception of Russia as an “invincible power”. At this, some politicians and political forces in the West continue to flirt with Russia, are interested in continuing cooperation with it, or are simply bribed by the Russian special services.

For these and other reasons, some of Ukraine’s partners objected even to the use of their weapons against military targets in Russian-occupied Crimea, considering it de facto “Russian”. However, such objections were later withdrawn, which allowed Ukraine to thwart the Russian plans to establish its dominance in the Black Sea region. Although achieving dominance in the Black Sea region was one of Russia’s strategic goals in the war against Ukraine, it failed to give any adequate response, except for the strikes on Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea.

This fact once again confirmed Russia’s inability to implement its threats to Ukraine and NATO. Today, Russia has already used all its resources in the war against Ukraine, as well as help from other rogue countries. Therefore, Russia will not have enough resources to attack the USA and NATO. In fact, the only means for Russia that would allow it to take the war against Ukraine to a qualitatively new level and accumulate enough resources for an attack on NATO countries is to conduct a general mobilization in the country and a total transfer of the Russian economy to military rails. However, such a step would inevitably lead to a deep crisis in the Russian Federation, which is already in a difficult economic situation, does not have sufficient financial reserves, faced with an acute problem of labor shortage and the reluctance of the majority of Russian men to participate in the war against Ukraine.

Besides, since 2014, the United States and NATO have significantly strengthened the defense of Europe and are capable of providing a decent response to Russia’s possible military aggression. Especially taking into account the qualitative superiority of Western weapons over Russian ones. Therefore, Russia resorts to the means of nuclear blackmail, but again, it cannot use nuclear weapons in reality, as this would have catastrophic consequences for it.

This situation puts Russia in a hopeless situation, which it tries to hide with the help of aggressive rhetoric against the United States and NATO, although it seeks to avoid a direct military confrontation with them. Evidence of this was the breakthrough of Ukrainian troops to Kursk region of Russia in August 2024. Russia accused the West of supporting the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but did nothing in response, even though one of its fundamental “red lines” was violated.

Given the above, the USA and Europe can ignore Russia and continue to provide Ukraine with all the military assistance it needs, along with permission to use their long-range weapons on Russian territory. Especially since Ukraine has a full moral and legal right to it.

Thus, since the very beginning of the full-scale war in 2022, Russia has been striking all over the territory of Ukraine and, mainly, targeting civilian infrastructure. With this in mind, no one can prevent Ukraine from defending itself by destroying the enemy’s strike systems, wherever Russia deploys them — at the front or in the rear. Besides, Russia receives artillery ammunition, missiles and UAVs from Iran and North Korea, along with permits for their free use. Then why Ukraine cannot get the same permission from its partners?

And finally, we would like to remind you about one more aspect of this issue. Ukraine’s use of long-range Western weapons against targets on Russian territory would not only not weaken the security of the West, but on the contrary would strengthen it, as it would become a significant factor in undermining the military potential of the Russian Federation. On the one hand, this would contribute to the victory of Ukraine as the main factor in restraining Russia’s military expansion, and on the other hand, it would deprive Russia of opportunities to implement its threats in relation to the USA and Europe.

The future fate of the world depends precisely on the results of Russia’s war against Ukraine. On whether it will become a concentration of totalitarianism with the dominance of the right of force over the force of law, or democracy and universal human values will prevail in it. Therefore, the forms and volumes of Western assistance to Ukraine will determine the future world order.

So far, Western countries have refrained from giving Ukraine permission to use their long-range weapons against Russia. Although, some progress on this path has been achieved. Thus, after the Russian invasion of Kharkiv region in May 2024, the United States agreed to Ukraine’s limited use of American weapons to strike neighboring regions of the Russian Federation. Such a decision became an important factor that contributed to the success of the Ukrainian troops in preventing a new breakthrough of the Russians to Kharkiv.

The mentioned issue was discussed last week during the visit to Kyiv of the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the British Foreign Minister David Lammy, as well as during the meeting in Washington of the US President Joe Biden with the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. According to official reports, Western partners “supported Ukraine”, but their decisions were not made public. However, according to The Guardian, the USA and the United Kingdom did decide to allow Ukraine to use their long-range missiles against targets on Russian territory, but not to announce this publicly.

Besides, Western countries such as France, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Finland have already granted permission to use their weapons against targets on the territory of Russia, or have supported Ukraine in this matter. However, the decisive word still remains with the USA. Including due to the fact that some American technologies are used by other Western partners in the production of their long-range weapons. That is why the negotiations between Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelenskyi on the sidelines of the 79^th session of the UN General Assembly at the end of September 2024 will be of great importance.

Thus, today one of Ukraine’s most urgent needs, as a significant prerequisite for achieving success in repulsing Russia’s full-scale aggression, is getting the permission of Western countries to use their weapons on targets in Russia. And, despite Moscow’s military and nuclear blackmail, Ukraine, together with its Western partners, is gradually overcoming Russia’s resistance.