The stunning raid, which surprised both Russian and apparently Western leaders, highlights one of the riskiest dilemmas for the Western-backed defense of Ukraine: US President Joe Biden has consistently sought to give Kiev the ability to repel a Russian invasion without risking a worsening of American relations with Moscow.
Since Russian leader Vladimir Putin has always tried to portray the conflict as a war between Russia and the West, Mr. Biden tried to set clear boundaries of US policy in order to diffuse this narrative and prevent a fire, writes the British broadcaster BBC.
But Ukraine’s Kursk offensive, the largest foreign military incursion into Russia since World War II, has raised a number of pressing questions for the White House. Is he rapidly expanding the limits set by Washington on how Ukraine can use American and NATO weapons systems? Is there a danger that Russian red lines will be crossed due to Western involvement in the war? If not, has Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shown Washington that he can answer Putin’s bluff?
Despite the risk and uncertainty, some residents of Washington are surprised to admire V. Zelensky’s move. Summing up the comments made by US officials over the past week, one can form an opinion about the emerging position. The administration claims that Ukraine did not give advance warning of the attack. White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said Washington had “nothing to do with it.”
As for the use of US weapons, the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department have not officially confirmed whether they are being used, but it seems clear that they are, given Ukraine’s reliance on US and NATO weapons systems. Vladislav Selezniov, a former spokesman for the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, told Voice of America that the US-provided HIMARS missile launchers were critical to the advance.
The US certainly gave implicit approval to Ukraine’s use of its weapons in the Kursk offensive. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder said this week: “We appreciate that they are within our policy limits. That policy has not changed, especially with regard to the use of U.S. weapons.”
Officials say the attack is “in line” with their policy “from the beginning” to allow Ukraine to defend itself against cross-border attacks. But Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh added: “Again, we do not support long-range attacks on Russia. They are more for crossfire. I’m not going to specify a specific distance.”
The United States is Ukraine’s largest arms supplier, making this relationship the most important for Ukraine’s prospects. Just last week, the Pentagon authorized the 63rd shipment of equipment over three years, including Stinger missiles and artillery shells. But since the beginning of the Russian invasion, President Biden’s approach has been characterized by his initial refusal to send more of the more advanced weaponry, including Himars missiles, Patriot missile defense systems and F-16 fighter jets, and then changing his mind.
The same is true of the White House’s policy regarding Ukraine’s attacks on Russian territory. For many months, V. Zelensky begged for permission to strike military targets in Russia that facilitated attacks on Ukraine. In May, Mr. Biden finally authorized the use of US weapons for strikes across the border into Russia, but only within a limited distance of the Kharkiv region, which Russia attacked. The White House described the authorized actions of Ukraine as measures of “retaliatory strike”.
“They are allowed to be used near the border when [Rusijos kariniai objektai] on the other side of the border are used to attack specific targets in Ukraine, – J. Biden said in June. “We don’t give permission to strike 200 miles (about 320 km) to Russia, and we don’t give permission to strike Moscow, the Kremlin.”
A few weeks later, the same authorization was extended to any border point where Russian forces are preparing to attack Ukraine.
Since then, V. Zelenskiy, together with some European allies and some Democrats in Washington, has called on the US to further “untie” Ukraine’s hands. Specifically, the Ukrainian leader wants to be able to use American-provided ATACMS, or long-range missiles, that can be fired deep into Russia to destroy drone or missile launch sites. Washington refused.
The warnings of President V. Putin, who has previously threatened to use “all possible means” if there is a threat to Russia’s territorial integrity, hover ominously above all such decisions. In addition, he also rattles off nuclear weapons if he thinks the West poses an intolerable threat to Russia because of the war in Ukraine.
Ultimately, President Biden’s position can be summed up as follows: Ukraine can decide how best to defend itself with American weapons, including strikes across the border, but within very clear limitations, including no long-range missiles. June the words he used indicated that Ukraine’s borders were “close to the border”.
The Kursk offensive takes America’s dilemma into unexpected territory, literally and figuratively. The invasion of Ukraine is a cross-border ground offensive that reportedly involves between 5,000 and 12,000 people. soldiers Some unconfirmed Russian reports say that its forces may have advanced up to 30 km into Russian territory.
By mid-week, Kiev said its forces controlled 1,000 square kilometers of Russian territory, including more than 70 villages and towns, and had captured hundreds of prisoners of war. Russian officials said that about 132,000 people were evacuated from their homes. people.
Because US officials are still reluctant to talk publicly about it in detail, they are still figuring out what it means for the state of the battlefield, the future of the war and how it affects Putin’s calculations, according to the BBC’s US State Department correspondent Tom Bateman.
If Zelensky has been frustrated by what he sees as too cautious or slow decision-making by Mr. Biden on weapons permits, he may try to show that he can get both him and Mr. Putin to act. This is a bold gamble.
Parents pay BBC inf.
2024-08-16 19:59:39