The News
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on US President Joe Biden to lift all restrictions on the use of US weapons to strike military targets inside Russia in the final hours of the NATO summit, saying that would be a “game changer” in its war against Moscow.
Biden joined other NATO leaders in pledging further military support for Ukraine at the summit by announcing a new aid package worth $225 million that includes an additional Patriot air defense system. Unlike other countries, however, his administration currently only allows US weapons to be fired inside Russian territory for the purposes of hitting back against Russian forces that are attacking or preparing to attack Ukraine.
While Biden offered no sign of whether the White House would change its stance, Washington separately announced it would station long-range missiles in Germany, capable of striking Moscow, for the first time since the late 1990s.
Outgoing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg appeared to back Zelenskyy’s renewed plea, arguing that since Russia opened a new front “the only way to hit [Russian] military targets… is to hit military targets in Russian territory.”
SIGNALS
US and NATO rules of engagement are forcing Ukraine into a game of ‘mother may I’
US limits on the use of its weapons inside Russian territory has long been a sticking point for Zelenskyy, and critics have called it “outmoded, illogical and contradictory.” Russia’s recent devastating strike on a children’s hospital in Kyiv highlighted just how “absurd” Biden’s rules of engagement are, since the bomber likely took off from an airfield that lies just beyond the 100km restriction area mandated by the Biden administration, two military experts argued in The Hill. The US and NATO are effectively forcing Ukraine to play a game of “mother may I” when it comes to military action, they added. Ukraine can no longer afford the precautions imposed by the US, two RAND experts argued.
Lifting restrictions may not be enough for Ukraine to win the war
The US lifting restrictions could potentially shift the “tempo” of the conflict, and force Russia to divert resources away from the frontline to defend its critical infrastructure, but such a step may not be enough to “fundamentally alter the balance of power” in a conflict that has essentially become a war of attrition, an academic argued in The Conversation in May. Any strategic benefits to Ukraine must be weighed against the risk of escalation, and the Kremlin’s nuclear threats shouldn’t be overlooked, he added.