WASHINGTON – The U.S. response to Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression appears to have shifted dramatically, as national security adviser Jake Sullivan announced that the Biden administration will ease restrictions on Kyiv’s use of weapons on Kremlin territory.
But critics say the change doesn’t go far enough, and this week’s declaration is another example of the Biden administration holding back Ukraine for fear of “escalating tensions,” rather than the United States standing up boldly to President Vladimir Putin.
Sullivan said Kiev could now attack not only around the northeastern city of Kharkiv, about 18 miles from the Russian border, but “anywhere Russian forces cross the border from Russia into Ukraine in an attempt to seize more Ukrainian territory.”
“This isn’t a question of geography, it’s a question of common sense,” Sullivan told PBS on Tuesday. “If Russia is attacking or attempting to attack Ukraine from its own territory, it makes sense to allow Ukraine to fight back against forces attacking it from across its border.”
Dalibor Rohak, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told The Post on Friday that the changes were “just another round of the never-ending game of politics within the administration of drawing red lines that should never be crossed with Putin.”
“We’re just drawing a line for ourselves and then gradually loosening that line,” Rohac said. “This is a terrible way to make policy.”
Presidential Hesitation
When it comes to Ukraine, the White House has clearly lacked urgency, often balking at requests to send in advanced weaponry or make meaningful policy changes.
It took 11 months for President Biden to authorize the Pentagon to send crucial Abrams M1 tanks, a year and a half to authorize countries to donate U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets, and more than two years to send the ATACMS (pronounced “attack-ems”) long-range missile system to Ukraine.
In the latest example, the newly expanded firing doctrine still prohibits the use of ATACMS, which has a range of about 186 miles, against Russian targets, according to the Pentagon. In contrast, the weapons Ukraine is authorized to fire at enemy territory have much shorter ranges, such as the Javelin anti-tank missile system, which has a range of 2.5 miles.
Furthermore, permission to fire on Russian territory only applies to attacks on targets that are actively firing on them or that are coming across the Ukrainian border.
This is a problem, Rokhak said, because it would prevent Kiev from targeting strategic targets such as weapons facilities and oil refineries that support Russian forces but are not directly involved in the fighting.
The restrictions would hinder Ukraine’s ability to cut off Russian supply lines, which Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other officials have said is key to Kiev winning the war.
In fact, according to estimates by the Institute for the Study of War, Ukraine is authorized to attack only up to 16 percent of Russian military targets within ATACMS range of its borders.
Among the potential targets in the no-go zone are 16 major Russian air bases that support Putin’s war to control the skies over Ukraine.
“Asking the Ukrainians to defend themselves without being able to attack Russian logistics lines, oil refineries and all the other completely legitimate military targets inside Russia means they can’t actually wage a war properly,” Rohak said. “Their hands are tied behind their backs.”
‘no change‘
In contrast to Sullivan’s comments this week, other U.S. officials have said their previous policy of only allowing Ukraine to launch attacks on Russia from around the Kharkiv area remains unchanged.
“There’s no change in policy. At the end of the day, this comes down to fighting back, right?” Pentagon spokesman Brigadier General Pat Ryder said Thursday. “What we’ve seen in the Kharkiv area is that Russia has been attacking, massing forces, artillery fire, preparatory fire into Ukraine as they’ve conducted these operations.”
“The policy places emphasis on our ability to fight back when attacked,” he added.
Ryder then further retracted Sullivan’s statements.
“Russian forces are seeking to use their border as a safe haven from which to launch preparatory fire and attacks on Ukraine in support of their offensive actions,” the spokesman said. “So we have repeatedly seen these forces conducting this type of operation from across the border… Ukraine has the right, and does, to strike back in defense of its country.”
But Foreign Secretary Austin noted last week that the policy only applies to the “Kharkov region,” and National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has also publicly spoken out about Washington’s reluctance to allow Kiev to open fire on Russia.
Same story as always
“We’ve been through this so many times. [from] Initial decision on whether HIMARS can be provided [rocket systems in 2022] “Because it’s too much of an ‘escalation,'” Rohak said. “Every time we draw an arbitrary line, Ukrainians can’t actually fight properly, so we slacken off.”
“I want to know what the geniuses in this administration are thinking,” he added. “We should have learned our lesson by now, but we haven’t.”
“I think they should just say, ‘We will follow Ukraine’s decision,'” he said. “At the highest levels, that’s kind of been the official line, but in practice we don’t really allow Ukraine to make its own decisions, and that makes the situation worse.”
But Wes Rambo, a fellow at the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it’s “natural that the United States and Ukraine have different risk tolerances on the issue of escalation.”
“This conflict has been an existential challenge for Ukraine from the start, and the United States must manage it as part of its broader national security challenges,” he said. “From this perspective, it is understandable that Washington is wary of escalating tensions.”
Rambo also said Biden’s moderate approach may have been necessary, at least at the start of the war.
“An initial less restrictive policy may have created problems both in rallying European partners and in maintaining domestic political support to supply Ukraine with weapons for self-defense,” he said.
