EDITOR'S CORNER: Ukraine Has Full Right to Hit Targets in Russia

This week, we will examine why Ukraine should be permitted to strike targets within Russia. Western partners must grant Ukraine full discretion in using weapons to defend against the illegal Russian invasion.

In this blog post, we will evaluate the current state of the war, the advantages Ukraine could gain by striking targets beyond its borders and deep within Russia, and their capabilities. We will also touch on the morality of war and each country's right to self-defense.

HOW IS THE WAR GOING?

The war has been at a stalemate for a long time. However, in recent months, Russia has been making slow but steady gains toward Kharkiv. Russia has opened a second front in the area and is aggressively pushing towards Ukraine's second-largest city. This offensive began on May 9th.

This means that Russia is pushing Ukraine's defenses to the brink. In Kharkiv, daily bombings target civilians, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. On the front lines, Ukrainian troops are exhausted by their daily shortage of ammunition. The Russians are also making incremental gains in various small villages and advancing on the Chasiv Yar and Avdiivka fronts.

The shortage of materiel for Ukraine is slowly being alleviated by the recently approved $61 billion aid package passed by the United States House of Representatives, in April. However, the lack of weapons and ammunition over the past six months has had a severe impact on Ukraine's ability to strike back.

Russia faces its own challenges with materiel being destroyed by Ukrainian forces daily. They also lack manpower, with recruitment increasingly difficult. Some Russian troops are being sent into Ukraine for a second time, which gives them a tactical advantage due to their previous knowledge of the war and terrain.

Ukraine also faces a shortage of personnel, which may be addressed by new laws recently passed in the Verkhovna Rada, and signed in by the President. Additionally, Ukraine faces political challenges, as President Zelenskyy's first term officially expired on May 20th. According to the Ukrainian constitution, elections cannot be held during martial law. Although Zelenskyy remains in office legitimately, Russia attempts to portray him as a dictator to bolster their propaganda and sway Western opinion to the right.

UKRAINE WANTS TO HIT TARGETS OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA WITH WESTERN WEAPONS 

Zelenskyy has been urgently trying to persuade Western allies to allow Ukraine to regularly hit targets inside Russian borders. So far, only a handful of countries have approved the use of their weapons for this purpose. These countries include the United Kingdom, France, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Sweden, and Finland. Conversely, countries such as Germany and Belgium have categorically refused to allow their weapons to be used outside Ukrainian borders. The United States has been notably vocal in its stance against approving any scenario in which Ukraine employs American weaponry to target Russia.

Ukraine has received long-range missiles from various countries, including Storm Shadows from the UK and French-made SCALP systems. Additionally, the U.S. has reportedly sent over 100 ATACMS missiles. Ukrainian forces have successfully used these missiles to strike targets in Russian-occupied territories, including Crimea.

Ukraine's main goal is to obtain more Western weapons with fewer restrictions to defend themselves more effectively and to diminish Russia's capabilities. Up to now, Ukraine has been using its own drones to attack Russian oil refineries, which is a strategic move to cripple Russia's main industry for generating rubles. However, the United States has been hesitant about this approach as it could drive up oil prices, which would be unfavorable in an election year.

WHY ARE WESTERN LEADERS HESITATING?

Western leaders fear escalating the conflict with Russia, especially the use of nuclear weapons. However, I believe Russia is unlikely to use them due to the severe retaliation it would face from the United States. Additionally, nuclear fallout could affect Russia itself, as prevailing winds favor the East. Another concern is an attack on NATO nations like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia.

It's understandable that Western partners fear intensification. No one wants the conflict to spread. However, NATO and other Ukraine allies must also consider the benefits versus the costs of Ukraine being able to hit targets outside of its borders.

The main benefits are that Ukraine could significantly impair Russia's ability to launch attacks. This can be achieved by eliminating defense personnel and materiel, as well as targeting economic assets that fund the war effort. This would weaken the Russian war machine both financially and operationally.

Another benefit is that crippling Russia militarily and financially reduces its ability to attack NATO territories in the future. Supporting Ukraine is the most cost-effective solution for European countries and the United States. The U.S. defense budget is substantial, so aiding Ukraine isn't overly burdensome compared to the expenses of an escalated conflict requiring U.S. troops and materiel in multiple NATO countries. This proactive support helps prevent a more costly and widespread war.

One major con of allowing Ukraine to strike outside its borders is the potential for retaliation from Russia. This risk is significant, but it is worth considering that Russia is already engaging in hybrid warfare against many Western countries. Taking a firm stance against Russia might actually deter further aggression rather than provoke it. Putin would have to weigh the potential consequences of his actions, including the possibility of a strong NATO response.

Another crucial factor is China's influence. Russia's options for retaliation are limited by Xi Jinping's disapproval of nuclear solutions. Losing China's support would be a significant blow to Russia, both financially and militarily.

While the fear of escalation among Western leaders is understandable, the benefits of allowing Ukraine to strike targets outside its borders may outweigh the risks. Weakening Russia's military and financial capabilities now could prevent more significant conflicts in the future. Supporting Ukraine proactively is a strategic move that could save NATO countries from greater expenses and dangers down the line.

MORALITY IN WAR 

Some voices have raised concerns about the morality of Ukraine targeting sites in Russia. Essentially, the argument revolves around understanding Ukraine's defense of its own territory and efforts to reclaim temporarily occupied areas. For instance, hitting Crimea and destroying Russian military targets there is often deemed acceptable. Most Western leaders and experts agree that Ukraine should regain its territories up to the 1991 borders and that Russia should withdraw all troops from those areas.

In my view, Ukraine's actions to gain an upper hand in the battle should not be judged solely by a moral yardstick. Every nation has the inherent right to defend itself and protect its population. Presently, Russia maintains a clear advantage, stationing military weapons on the border and subjecting Ukraine to constant terror. All Ukraine can do is fire missiles into the sky and brace for bombings. Where is the morality in that?

When it comes to survival and defense, morality lies in aiding the weaker party that is being terrorized and facing daily casualties, not in inadvertently supporting the aggressor. By imposing limitations on Ukraine's ability to defend itself beyond its borders, the West sends a feeble message that we support Ukraine enough to help it survive, but not enough to win the war.

The collective stance of the West must shift towards decisive action. We need to neutralize Russia's capabilities to prevent any future escalation or potential conflict with NATO. By appeasing Putin, we unwittingly play into his hands, emboldening further aggression.

CONCLUSION 

The conclusion is resolute: we must throw our unwavering support behind Ukraine to secure its resounding victory in this conflict. This support cannot be half-hearted; it must empower Ukraine not only to endure but to decisively triumph over Russian aggression and safeguard against future encroachments.

Ukraine requires the full latitude to deploy Western weaponry as deemed necessary, coupled with the establishment of a no-fly zone over Ukrainian cities to shield civilians from further harm and prevent additional infrastructure devastation.

The West must shed its trepidation of crossing Russian red lines. Over the past two and a half years, we've cautiously tested these boundaries without facing substantial reprisal. Yet, the more concessions we afford Russia, the more emboldened they become. It's time to tighten our grip and firmly restrain their belligerence.