White House Divided: Should Ukraine Strike Back Inside Russia?

A fierce debate is raging within the Biden administration over whether to allow Ukraine to use US-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

This policy shift, long resisted by the President for fear of escalation, is gaining traction as Russia presses its offensive.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, following a recent sobering visit to Kyiv, is spearheading the push to loosen restrictions.

He argues that Russia’s recent territorial gains stem directly from their ability to launch attacks from just across the border in Ukraine, putting Kyiv at a significant disadvantage.

“These targets – missile and artillery launch sites – have enabled Moscow’s advances,” Blinken reportedly argued, according to The New York Times. “We’re simply giving them the means to defend themselves more effectively.”

Ukraine Feels Hamstrung by Restrictions

This sentiment is echoed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“This inability to fire American missiles at military targets in Russia gives Moscow a huge advantage,” he told the Times.

Ukrainian forces are currently limited to using US-made weapons on targets within Ukraine, hindering their ability to strike back at the source of the attacks.

Adding pressure to the debate is the recent move by Britain, a staunch US ally.

They have quietly lifted restrictions on their long-range “Storm Shadow” cruise missiles, allowing them to be used more broadly against Russian forces.

This shift suggests a growing consensus among Western nations that Ukraine needs more offensive capability.

Biden Remains Cautious, Fearing Escalation

However, President Biden remains the biggest hurdle.

Haunted by the specter of a wider war, he has consistently prioritized restraint.

“Our expectation is that they continue to use the weapons that we’ve provided on targets inside of Ukraine,” reiterated Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III, echoing the administration’s long-held stance.

The Looming Threat of Nuclear Weapons

The potential consequences of allowing strikes inside Russia are a major concern.

Russia has repeatedly threatened to escalate the conflict, including the chilling possibility of deploying tactical nuclear weapons.

While some, like former State Department official Victoria Nuland, dismiss this as bluster, the risk cannot be entirely discounted.

“I think if the attacks are coming directly from over the line in Russia, that those bases ought to be fair game,” argued Nuland on ABC’s “This Week.”

She believes the potential benefits of crippling Russian launch sites outweigh the escalation risks.

Russia Flexes Military Muscle

Further complicating the debate is the recent Russian military exercises involving tactical nuclear weapons, seen by some as a direct response to US discussions on lifting restrictions.

This show of force underscores the potential dangers involved.

However, the administration appears less swayed by these threats than in the past.

Memories of earlier Russian nuclear anxieties, which ultimately proved unfounded, have emboldened some to take a tougher stance.

History Suggests Biden Might Budge

This shift in thinking aligns with Nuland’s experience. As a more hawkish official within the administration, she previously advocated for sending increasingly sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine, each time overcoming President Biden’s initial hesitation without triggering a wider war.

This history provides some hope that the current debate might end similarly.

Ultimately, the decision rests with President Biden.

He must weigh the potential benefits of bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against the risk of an uncontrollable escalation.

The pressure to act is mounting, both from within his administration and Ukraine.

The coming days may determine whether the US changes tack, potentially altering the course of the war and redrawing the lines of acceptable action in this devastating and drawn-out conflict.