Ukraine cannot win if Biden bars attacks on Russian soil
When the Ukrainian Army begins pushing entrenched Russian adversaries out of defensive positions in the Donbas region during the initial phases, recapturing and liberating sovereign territory, the Biden administration will face a new dilemma.
Will Biden support Ukrainian ground forces in the military pursuit of a retreating Russian army that attempts to escape annihilation by seeking sanctuary on the Russian side of the border? Will he support artillery and air strikes on the Russian side of the border?
Following the May 22 Belgorod raid by elements of the pro-Ukrainian Russian Volunteer Corps and the Freedom of Russia Legion, both composed solely of anti-Putin Russian citizens, the White House foreshadowed that it would not. State Department spokesman Matt Miller said, “As a general policy matter, we have been clear that we don’t support the use of U.S.-made equipment being used for attacks inside of Russia.”
Then on June 5, spokesman John Kirby seemingly doubled down on the policy. “We don’t encourage, we don’t enable and we don’t support strikes or attacks inside Russia,” he said. “Our effort is to support them in their self-defense, in defending their territory, their sovereignty.”
Both Miller’s and Kirby’s policy statements were, at least on the surface for now, an affirmation of the position President Biden presented last spring in a New York Times op-ed. “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders,” Biden wrote.
Upon closer review, however, maybe not so fast. Miller’s statement was, in one breath, a definitive “no” to our question. But in another, the White House simply turns a blind eye, thereby assuming the position of plausible deniability.
Consider Kirby’s statement: “We don’t tell them where to strike. We don’t tell them where not to strike. We don’t tell them how to conduct their operations. We give them equipment. We give them training. We give them advice and counsel. Heck, we even do tabletop exercises with them to help them plan out what they’re going to do.”
It leaves us somewhat with a Jekyll and Hyde-like Pentagon policy approach. After all, the administration did secretly modify the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) so they could not be used by Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia. The modification restricted its use to the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS), which has a range of 70 kilometers, and prevented the use of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) munitions that have a range of 300 kilometers.
That is not exactly “we don’t tell them.”
Beyond the mixed signals, intended or not, the encroaching dilemma presented to the Biden administration concerning pursuit and cross border strikes is significant. Affording sanctuary to Russian ground forces escaping Ukraine into Russia will only prolong the war and the killing. There can be no time out, safety, or home base — this is not a children’s game of tag.
These constraints — rules of engagement that essentially put Russia off limits — severely restrict Ukraine’s ability to win this war. In fact, they could render its counteroffensive ineffective. Allowing retreating Russians sanctuary is akin to providing Kyiv air defense systems while simultaneously denying them the capability to eliminate the threat by destroying the launch platforms in Russia from which hundreds of missiles are launched at Ukrainian villages, towns and cities. It enables the Kremlin to continue the fight on its own terms — and it has demonstrated repeatedly that it will do so with ruthless abandon.
Putin has effectively drawn a red-line around Ukraine and proclaimed the “special military operation” will be contained to within the borders of Ukraine — and the Biden Administration has obediently obliged out of “escalation paralysis.” On June 20, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu redrew that red line and warned Ukraine and its Western supporters of “immediate retaliation” if Kyiv attacks Crimea with Western missiles. “The use of such missiles outside the zone of the special military operation would signify the United States’ and Great Britain’s full-fledged involvement in the conflict,” he said, “and will lead to immediate strikes on decision-making centers in Ukraine.”
The only backbone exhibited thus far has come from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, his generals and a couple of NATO partners. Ukraine has bombed the Kerch Strait Bridge that connects Crimea to the Russian mainland. It has also struck Russian air bases in Crimea and Russia, flown drones over Moscow, conducted special operations in Russia’s rear areas, sunk Russian warships in the Black Sea and launched raids into Russian territory.
The United Kingdom stepped up to the plate by providing the Storm Shadow cruise missile, and Poland led the effort getting the German Leopard 2 main battle tank into Ukraine.
Biden and his advisors — specifically the Secretary of Defense and Retired Army General Lloyd Austin, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan — need to take the gloves off and give Ukraine what it needs to win.
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead — and that begins with ATACMS.
Washington should formally announce that Ukraine has the “green light” to pursue and destroy Russian ground forces with weapons provided by the U.S., regardless what side of the border they are on. Furthermore, missile and drone launch sites must now become in season as well. To enable that, Ukraine must be provided the capability to target and interdict these threats with ATACMS, F-16s and whatever else Zelensky and his generals ask for.
The decision to change U.S. policy must be made prior to Ukrainian ground forces pushing the Russian army across the border. Momentum cannot be lost at the border awaiting a decision that can be made today. The Biden administration must break its cycle of indecision.
We may have just witnessed the front end of that commitment. On May 29, when asked whether it is time for ATACMS for Ukraine, Biden responded, “that’s still in play.” The speculation gained momentum on June 17, when the House Armed Services Committee included language in a bill reading, “Of the funds authorized for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI) elsewhere in this Act, the committee intends that no less than $80 million be used for the procurement of Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”
Winning the war means taking the fight to Russia — not invading Russia, but defeating its ability to wage war from Russian territory. This war ends with a defeat of Russian ground forces. Their ability to conduct offensive operations in Ukraine must be destroyed now and into the foreseeable future.
There can be no sanctuary, no quarter on the Russian side of the border, if this war is ever to be won.
Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army Colonel and 30-year military intelligence officer, led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. Mark Toth is an economist, entrepreneur, and former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis.