US Nears Decision to Let Ukraine Hit Some Targets in Russia
The United States is reportedly nearing a critical decision: whether to allow Ukraine to strike specific targets within Russia using US-supplied weapons. If implemented, this policy would mark a significant escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, potentially altering the dynamics of international involvement. Such a move reflects an evolution in Western support for Ukraine but carries substantial risks of escalation and global repercussions.
A Shift in Policy
Reports suggest that the Biden administration is considering lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range US weaponry to target military sites within Russian territory. These potential strikes would focus on military and logistical facilities directly supporting Russia’s operations in Ukraine, such as ammunition depots, airbases, and rail hubs near the border.
This policy discussion comes as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to assume office as the 47th president of the United States on 20 January 2025. The Trump administration is expected to bring a significantly different approach to foreign policy, including potential shifts in support for Ukraine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly emphasised prioritising “America First” policies, raising questions about how his administration will handle the ongoing conflict and the extent of US involvement.
The Biden administration’s potential decision to allow Ukraine to target Russian territory could reflect an effort to solidify its legacy of support for Ukraine and establish the parameters of US policy before the new administration takes over. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently argued that defensive actions alone will not secure lasting peace, stressing the need to disrupt Russia’s war apparatus beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Previously, Washington restricted the use of its military aid to avoid provoking broader conflict, reflecting concerns among NATO allies about potential escalation. The decision now under consideration signals a more assertive stance in deterring Moscow’s aggression.
International Responses and Risks
Support from NATO Allies
NATO members broadly support Ukraine’s defence, but opinions vary on the scope of that support. Poland, the Baltic states, and other Eastern European nations advocate for decisive measures, including allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory. They argue that such actions could weaken Moscow’s operational capacity and deter further aggression.
Conversely, Western European nations, including France and Germany, have expressed reservations. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who recently held rare direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, highlighted the need for diplomatic solutions, reflecting broader European concerns about uncontrolled escalation.
Russia’s Stance
The Kremlin has condemned the potential policy change. Dmitry Peskov, the Russian presidential spokesperson, warned of “dangerous consequences” if the US permits strikes within Russian borders, framing such actions as evidence of NATO’s direct involvement in the war.
Russian state media have amplified these warnings, portraying the decision as a step towards full-scale war with the West. Analysts fear Moscow could retaliate with cyberattacks or strikes on critical Western infrastructure in response to Ukrainian incursions into its territory.
Military Implications
The decision to allow Ukraine to target Russian territory represents a tactical gamble. Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to disrupt Russian supply chains using advanced US weapons such as the HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System). Enabling strikes on Russian soil with systems like the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) could significantly amplify this impact.
Key logistical hubs and ammunition depots in Russia play a crucial role in sustaining Moscow’s operations in eastern Ukraine. Targeting these assets could disrupt Russia’s war machinery, forcing retreats or operational delays.
However, military experts caution that Russia’s sophisticated air defence systems and extensive intelligence networks pose considerable risks to Ukrainian forces. Striking within Russia would require precise planning and coordination to mitigate operational challenges and avoid unintended consequences.
Domestic Challenges in Washington
The proposed shift has sparked debate within the United States. While bipartisan support for aiding Ukraine remains strong, some lawmakers caution against policies that risk entangling the US in a direct conflict with Russia.
Critics, such as Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), argue that further escalation could detract from addressing other strategic priorities, particularly countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) supports stronger aid, framing it as a necessary stand against authoritarian aggression.
Public opinion in the US reflects similar divisions. A recent Pew Research Centre survey found that 48 per cent of Americans favour prioritising domestic concerns over foreign military aid, though a slim majority supports providing advanced weaponry to Ukraine. This nuanced perspective underscores the political complexities of any policy change.
Broader Geopolitical Stakes
Allowing Ukrainian strikes within Russia carries profound geopolitical implications. Such a move could redefine international norms regarding the scope of defensive operations, emboldening other nations facing threats from powerful adversaries. Taiwan, for instance, could view this as an affirmation of Western resolve to counter aggression.
However, critics warn that such actions may blur the lines of sovereignty in wartime, creating precedents that could destabilise future conflicts. Questions about the legality and ethical implications of targeting sovereign territory remain contentious.
Conclusion: A Delicate Balancing Act
As the US edges closer to a decision, the stakes could not be higher. For Ukraine, the ability to strike within Russian borders could represent a turning point in the conflict, weakening Moscow’s military efforts and potentially hastening a resolution.
For the US and its allies, however, the risks are equally significant. The potential for Russian retaliation escalated tensions within NATO, and broader geopolitical fallout must be carefully weighed.
This policy, if adopted, will test the boundaries of international law and the resilience of global alliances. Whether it proves to be a masterstroke or a misstep, it will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of the Ukraine-Russia war and the future of global diplomacy.
Aric Jabari is a Fellow, and the Editorial Director at the Sixteenth Council.
