EDITOR'S CORNER: Long Range Weapons and Red Lines

Recently, debates have intensified over whether the U.S. should allow Ukraine to use American-made long-range weapons. The UK has signaled its willingness to approve the move but remains dependent on U.S. consent, as the British Storm Shadow missiles rely on American-supplied navigational data and components.

In this blog post, we’ll examine why the U.S. and its allies are hesitant to act, the potential impact of these weapons, and Russia's so-called "red lines."

WHO IS ON BOARD AND WHO'S AFRAID

Ukraine is facing mounting challenges on the battlefield, struggling to hold the front lines in Donetsk while managing its Kursk incursion. Intense fighting rages on both fronts, and recruitment and training efforts are falling short.

Recently, Ukraine cut its basic training program from 45 to 30 days, leaving the frontlines with inexperienced, uncertain soldiers. Western weapons are arriving too slowly and with too much public discussion, leading to a growing sense in Ukraine that their partners may not be entirely reliable.

The Kursk offensive delivered mixed results. It boosted morale, instilled confidence in Ukraine’s ability to surprise Russia, and captured significant territory, along with increasing the number of Russian prisoners of war. However, it failed to draw Russian troops away from Donbas, as Zelenskyy had hoped, leaving Ukraine stretched across two fronts.

For months, Zelenskyy has been urging Western powers, particularly the U.S., to allow strikes on deeper Russian targets, such as airfields, where Russia keeps its long-range weapons safely out of Ukraine’s reach. These weapons are used to launch missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, killing and injuring civilians.

US made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, are a key part of Zelenskyy's "Peace Plan" 

AMERICA'S REACTION

So far, France and Italy have sent their SCALP missiles to Ukraine without imposing any restrictions on their use. Other European countries, like Finland, have also made it clear that Ukraine can freely use the weapons they've supplied. Germany, however, has outright refused to provide Taurus missiles, fearing retaliation from Russia. The UK, as previously discussed, is willing to grant permission but still needs to convince the U.S.

NATO has stated that Ukraine has the legal right to strike deep into Russian territory, but only with its own weapons, such as Ukrainian-made drones. Using foreign-supplied weapons for such strikes is prohibited. Some have questioned why Ukraine doesn’t just defy these restrictions and apologize later. The issue is that defying its partners could risk cutting off the steady flow of military and financial support.

About a week ago, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with President Joe Biden, reportedly discussing this issue, but no clear outcome emerged. This could mean a few things: either Vladimir Putin's saber-rattling got to the U.S. president, or perhaps the permission was quietly granted, and we’ll see results soon. When asked about the matter, Putin warned that granting Ukraine permission would mean NATO is at war with Russia—a statement with serious implications we'll explore later.

The British made Storm Shadow missiles have a range of up to 250 kilometers 

RUSSIAN RED LINES

Russia has consistently warned that "if the West does X, we’ll do Y," but the West has repeatedly pushed these so-called red lines without significant consequences. This doesn't mean Russia won't react in the future, as the Kremlin is an unpredictable entity that should not be underestimated. However, the fear of Russia using nuclear weapons—whether in Ukraine, the U.S., or another NATO country—seems largely unfounded.

Russia's nuclear doctrine clearly outlines the conditions under which it might deploy its nuclear arsenal. Putin knows that crossing that line would invite serious repercussions, even from his own inner circle.

According to Russian military doctrine, nuclear weapons can be used if another country threatens Russia or its allies with nuclear weapons or if conventional aggression poses an existential threat to the state. Military analysts believe Russia may pursue an "escalation to de-escalation" strategy, using the threat of nuclear war to deter opponents from escalating a conflict.

In practical terms, what does this mean? We don't know for sure. However, it’s likely that significant escalation would be required before Russia resorts to nuclear strikes. Aimed at a NATO country, the retaliation would be swift and overwhelming. If used against Ukraine, the fallout might backfire on Russia itself, leading to domestic consequences severe enough to put Putin in a precarious position with his own citizens.

Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, is vehemently against Ukraine's wishes to strike deep into Russia

WHAT DOES UKRAINE NEED? 

European MEPs have called for increased support to Ukraine and urged that Ukraine be given the freedom to use Western-supplied materiel as they see fit. This is a crucial point. We need to ask Ukraine directly what they need, provide it, and remove artificial restrictions. They must be able to operate freely to defend themselves and stop the ongoing genocide against their people.

I understand the sensitivity of the situation in the U.S. due to the upcoming election. However, every wasted moment means more Ukrainian deaths and suffering. Currently, it's reported that two-thirds of Ukraine's energy capacity for heating and electricity has been destroyed by Russian missile strikes.

Russia’s threats often sound more severe than its actions. While caution from the West is understandable, excessive caution is not. What’s needed is a strong response with an element of surprise. Russia only respects strength. Putin doesn’t negotiate—he lies. Although everyone desires peace and there’s increasing pressure for it, Ukraine must first be placed in a strong position to negotiate effectively for both their territories and the return of prisoners of war held by Russia.

The West must act as if it wants Ukraine to win the war, not just survive it.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the time for indecision has passed. While the West has taken steps to support Ukraine, what is now required is swift and unrestricted aid. Every moment of delay means more Ukrainian lives lost, more suffering, and greater destruction of vital infrastructure. Russia’s threats should no longer dictate the West’s actions—Putin only understands strength, and Ukraine needs that strength to secure both peace and justice.

It’s time to allow Ukraine the freedom to strike deep within Russia, targeting military installations, oil refineries, and anything that fuels the war machine. This is essential to prevent further civilian casualties and protect Ukraine’s sovereignty.