Every day, Vladimir Putin rains bombs and missiles on civilian targets in Ukraine, spreading terror and trying to shut down the power supply as winter approaches. Ukraine has proposed a proportionate, legal response to these illegal attacks. It would like to use Western missiles to hit military targets in Russia from which Mr Putin’s forces are launching their barrage. So far, America has denied this reasonable request.
The West has been generous to Ukraine. Over the past two and a half years, it has given it over $200bn in weapons and cash to defend itself from Russian aggression, with over $100bn more in the pipeline. But time after time, donors have refused to supply kit that they later agreed was essential. First it was tanks, then missiles, then anti-missile batteries, then fighter jets. “They give us enough to survive, but not enough to win,” one Ukrainian front-line commander complained to The Economist this summer.
Read more of our recent coverage of the Ukraine war
Next week Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, will meet Joe Biden, and will renew his plea to be allowed to hit military targets inside Russia. Britain and France are content to have their missiles, the Storm Shadow and the SCALP, used in this way. But that is not happening, apparently because the missiles rely on American technology to reach their targets, and America has, so far, exercised a veto. Germany shares President Biden’s caution, and then some. It has not given Ukraine its own powerful Taurus missiles.
America may lift its veto on the use of European missiles, but that will not be enough. What Ukraine really wants is permission to fire American-supplied ATACMS at Russian targets. These have a longer range (up to 300km, against 250km for Storm Shadow and SCALP), and more of them are available. Yet Mr Biden says no. He should change his mind.
Various reasons are given for the veto. One is that the Russian planes that launch devastating “glide bombs” into Ukraine have been moved back out of ATACMS range. That is true; but there are plenty of other military targets, such as fuel and arms depots and command centres that Ukrainian drones struggle to hit. Lifting the restrictions would help Ukraine create a 300km-deep buffer zone on its border. America also says the missiles are in short supply. That is true of the European ones, but less so of the ATACMS.
Unfortunately, America is holding back out of a misplaced fear of escalation. Mr Putin has said that if Ukraine fires American missiles into Russia, it would be like NATO joining the war, and has promised severe consequences. The threat is not so much that Mr Putin acts in Ukraine—Russia is already doing everything it can there short of using a nuclear weapon, and crossing that threshold would provoke outrage, including among its allies such as China. The threat is instead that Russia attacks Western interests elsewhere by, say, giving weapons to Iran or the Houthis. This would be destabilising, but holding back would encourage Russian aggression in Europe—even as Mr Putin continued to wield the threat of stoking proliferation in the Middle East.
Mr Biden’s caution rewards Mr Putin’s recklessness. What is more, it rubs off on other faint-hearts, such as Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, thus dividing NATO. Mr Putin sees that division, and concludes that the West is tired of war and keen to cut a deal that will be to his advantage. Peace talks may indeed begin next year, after America’s election. The best way to raise morale in Ukraine and to strengthen Mr Zelensky’s hand in any talks would be for the West to show that it is fully behind its ally. ■
Source: The Economist