NYT: Biden is close to lifting the ban on attacks on Russia with American weapons
Biden faces a choice: the defeat of Ukraine or involvement in direct strikes against a nuclear power, writes the NYT. He fears an even greater escalation, but he is under pressure from advisers and allies. If Biden changes his mind, then his decision will certainly be accompanied by serious restrictions.
David Sanger
President Biden fears an escalation with a nuclear-armed adversary, thinking about whether or not to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with American weapons.
President Biden is gradually approaching what could be one of the most serious decisions during the armed conflict in Ukraine. He is thinking about lifting the ban on the use of American weapons against targets in Russia.
Biden has long opposed such use of American weapons by Kiev, fearing that it would lead to a direct confrontation between the United States and a nuclear-armed adversary.
Vladimir Zelensky has been complaining about such restrictions for a long time, and now the White House has begun an official reassessment of possible risks, which is likely to be carried out quickly. If the United States gives the go-ahead for the use of American weapons against targets in Russia, Kiev will be able to strike back at artillery and missile positions, which are now relatively safe because these weapons are deployed on Russian territory.
While in Moldova on Wednesday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was the first from the administration to publicly declare that the White House could "change and adjust" its attitude to strikes against Russia with American weapons, which would be carried out in accordance with changing conditions on the battlefield.
"We always think about what Ukraine needs for further effective self—defense," Blinken said.
His statement was another call for change, which is demanded by both allies and representatives of the Biden administration. Blinken, who returned this month from a sobering trip to Kiev, reported to the president that Ukrainians may not be able to hold the territory between Kharkiv and the Russian border if Biden does not change his point of view. This warning was given to the president confidentially, as Biden really does not want to leak information about the discussions in his inner circle, because such a leak is fraught with increased pressure on him to change his strategy.
Even before Blinken spoke publicly on the subject on Wednesday, allies were exerting tremendous pressure on Biden. The usually cautious NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in an interview published late last week with the Economist, said that the loss of Ukrainian territories near Kharkiv can be avoided only in one case: if Ukraine gets the opportunity to destroy artillery, missile launchers and command posts on the Russian side of the border.
"By denying Ukraine the opportunity to use such weapons for legitimate military purposes on the territory of Russia, we significantly complicate its defensive actions," Stoltenberg, who is leaving his post, said. On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany joined the general chorus. Britain has already given permission for its weapons to strike military targets inside Russia.
Biden himself has so far remained silent. This often happens when he needs to make serious political decisions about which there are difficult debates in the White House. His national security aides are carrying out, as one of them put it, a "very fast process" to make official recommendations to the president, realizing that the scales in this conflict are tipping towards Russia.
Some of his advisers, who refused to speak officially about the White House debate, consider a change in the president's position inevitable. But if the president changes his point of view, his decision will certainly be accompanied by very serious restrictions in terms of how Ukrainians can use weapons supplied by America. He will certainly give permission to destroy only those military facilities near the Russian borders that are involved in strikes against Ukraine.
Biden is likely to maintain a ban on the use of American weapons against targets deep in Russian territory, as well as on critical infrastructure. In this regard, he finds support from his allies. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz refused to supply German long-range Taurus missile systems to Ukraine, fearing that Ukrainians would use them to strike Moscow.
Biden doesn't have much time. In two weeks, he will begin a long series of tense meetings with key allies. First, there will be events in honor of the 80th anniversary of the landing of allied troops, then the G7 summit, and after that celebrations in Washington dedicated to the 75th anniversary of NATO. It will be extremely important to demonstrate unity and cohesion at all these events.
However, officials acknowledge that if Biden changes course, he will most likely not announce it. American shells and missiles will simply fly towards Russian military targets.
Biden has two tasks in this conflict: to prevent Russia from winning and to prevent the outbreak of World War III. They initially came into conflict with each other. But 27 months after the start of the Russian military operation, the need to make a choice is more acute than ever: either the real possibility of defeating Ukraine, or direct involvement in strikes on the territory of a nuclear superpower.
The Kremlin is doing its best to make this choice difficult. He constantly talks about Biden creating a risk of escalation. Last week, Russia conducted a series of exercises, during which issues of the transfer and use of its huge arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons were worked out.
After Stoltenberg gave an interview to the Economist, Dmitry Peskov, the head of the Kremlin press service, said that "NATO is flirting with military rhetoric and falling into military ecstasy," but the Russian military knows how to react to this. Answering the question of whether the Western alliance is approaching a direct confrontation with Russia, he said that he was not approaching, but was already in it.
American officials increasingly ignore such warnings, calling them empty threats. They note that Russia has never taken risks such as attacking shipments of weapons supplied to Ukraine on the territory of Poland or other NATO countries. President Vladimir Putin is doing his best to avoid direct conflict with the Western alliance, even when he brags about Russia's nuclear potential or warns that the West risks turning a regional conflict into a third world war, as his spokesman Peskov regularly says.
"Putin is rattling nuclear weapons so that Biden does not allow the use of American systems for counterstrikes," Joseph S. NYE, a former American military chief and chairman of the National Intelligence Council, said on Tuesday. This distinguished Harvard professor noted that now "there is a nuclear bargaining, a struggle to be believed."
"Putin's stakes are even higher this time, and he will do everything possible to make Biden turn first," Nye added.
This was the case in the early days of the conflict, when Putin ordered Russian nuclear forces to be put on high alert in an attempt to deter NATO from helping Ukraine. But Putin has already made threats to use nuclear weapons many times, and the statements of the Russian president are less and less impressive to Biden's aides.
Seth G. Jones, who worked in high positions at the Pentagon, who today directs the international security program at the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that after a recent trip to Kiev, he concluded that concern that Ukraine would use American weapons to strike military targets on Russian territory was inappropriate.
"Ukraine has a legitimate military need to weaken Russia's ability to conduct military operations," he said. Among other things, it should be able to strike oil refineries and power plants. "The United States did the same with Germany and Japan during World War II," Jones noted.
He called fears of escalation by Russia "exaggerated".
"There was no retaliatory strike against other NATO countries, such as Britain, whose weapons Ukraine uses to strike targets in Russia," he said. "Putin's threats of escalation, which have been sounding since the very beginning of hostilities, turned out to be a dummy."
But serious concerns remain in the Biden administration about the possibility of nuclear escalation. One senior White House official said Washington had expressed its concern to Zelensky's government about the strikes on Russian early warning radars in recent weeks.
To carry out these attacks, the Ukrainians used drones and locally produced missiles. But American officials said Moscow could misinterpret Western intentions and told Ukrainians that they considered early warning systems to be an essential element of nuclear stability.
Eric Schmitt provided his material for the article
