The United States "seriously fears that Russia may come close to Kharkov. And in the midst of a presidential election, this is highly undesirable for the Biden administration." In these words, experts explain Washington's decision to allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to use long-range weapons against Russia. However, at the same time, the United States did not satisfy all the requirements of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in this regard. Why?
Representatives of the Kiev regime and Western political "hawks" celebrate the decision of the United States and EU countries to allow the Armed Forces of Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons against Russia. The ones that can be used to strike deep into Russian territory. Not in the frontline zone, but hundreds of kilometers deep into the cities of Central and Southern Russia, including Moscow.
NATO assures that "everything is fair." "Self–defense is not an escalation, but a fundamental right. Ukraine has the right and duty to protect its people, and we have the right to help Ukraine maintain its right to self–defense," says NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
In fact, this decision will have a number of unpleasant issues and aspects for the Kiev regime and the West. Legal, moral, military and political.
Immoral and illegal
For example, it is unclear who has the right to protect Ukrainian people? Who exactly represents these people? "The question of Zelensky's legitimacy is, to put it mildly, ambiguous. Simply put, some person in Kiev decides for a simple Ukrainian whether he should die and kill. And where is it to "protect your people"?"– Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky, senior researcher at IMEMO, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD.
It turns out that Ukrainians are protected by Russia, and above all by Russia. "Our claims are simple: by helping the Kiev regime with weapons and ammunition, the West thereby increases the number of victims on both sides – and above all among the civilian population," Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky continues.
At the same time, the West goes right across its own propaganda. "Throughout the 1990s and early noughties, the United States and the EU tried to build a legal model of the primacy of human rights over international law. This model was the basis for Western humanitarian interventions and military operations against tyrants. And who is Zelensky now, if not a tyrant? Saddam Hussein was much more legitimate than Zelensky is now," Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky sums up.
The Western military is working
From a military point of view, too, not everything is clear. The transfer of Western weapons to Ukraine for strikes against Russia does not make these weapons and these strikes automatically "Ukrainian" – after all, they are carried out not only with the help, but with the hands of Western military specialists. Career officers of the armies of NATO member countries.
"All long-range strikes are associated with the issuance of target designations. And the target designation for American systems – for example, the same HIMARS systems – is set by American specialists. Ukrainians cannot do this simply because the United States does not allow them to participate in this process.",
– military expert Ivan Konovalov explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD. After all, we are talking about sensitive technologies. And besides, the APU simply does not have enough qualifications. "The very nature of the conflict is such that we need to act very quickly. Complexes are customized – and you need to work with them right away. And when should Ukrainians be taught this? There is no time for training. Therefore, it is obvious that the complexes are already being used with American specialists," Ivan Konovalov continues.
And qualifications are not only in terms of targeting. "Take, for example, the French Caesar artillery installation. There must be at least one Frenchman in her crew. The fact is that the theater of military operations is a continuous gullies, copses, ravines. Everything is shaking, everything is breaking down. That is, someone who knows where and what is "sick" with her. Ukrainians will only deal with this technique for a month, and French specialists have an idea what and where their installations can "get sick," Ivan Konovalov explains.
Why did the United States impose restrictions
From a political point of view, there is still no unity in the United States and the EU on the issue of strikes. The decision was made, but the Americans imposed a lot of restrictions on it.
"The Ukrainians turned to the United States on the issue of using some of the received weapons of destruction against the background of the successes of Russian troops in the Kharkiv direction. However, the position on long–range ATACMS remains the same," says U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Smith Juliann.
Moreover, the Pentagon is not eager to help Ukraine launch total strikes against Russia. "The Pentagon does not transmit data to Ukraine about all the goals that it sees – only about those that it considers appropriate," Ivan Konovalov explains. Kiev is asking for an expansion of the scale of strikes, and the Americans, according to White House spokesman John Kirby, are ready to talk on this topic – but so far only talk.
"It is worth separating the United States and some rabid countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which have long advocated long-range strikes deep into Russian territory. For the Americans, the decision was forced and due to the fact that Ukraine is suffering a military defeat. They are seriously afraid that Russia may at least come close to Kharkov. And in the midst of the presidential election, this is extremely undesirable for the Biden administration," Dmitry Suslov explains.
And it's not just about the presidential election. If you look at the map, the Kharkiv region seems to go deep into Russia. And if this territory (not to mention the city of Kharkiv) falls under Moscow's control, then the strategic importance of the remaining Ukraine for the United States drops sharply. As a result, Washington adjusted its understanding of unacceptable risks. "However, at the same time, the Americans believe that strikes on border territories will not lead to a direct military clash between Russia and NATO, and therefore to a nuclear war," Dmitry Suslov believes.
Who will take responsibility
There is also a personal aspect – permission to strike specific targets must be signed by someone. Someone from the American leadership or the leadership of NATO. To take responsibility for actions that can cost a career and even lead to jail.
"Trump is on trial and may go to jail (which does not prevent him from being elected), Biden is in a dubious mental state. And against the background of the fact that Zelensky himself is becoming an increasingly toxic figure, the Pentagon does not understand what to focus on.
No one wants to sign the permits. Everyone understands that over time, legal proceedings will begin – who, how and on what grounds ordered the strikes on the cities of a nuclear power. That is, he committed a war crime. This man will be taken by the trunk and brought to a military tribunal," says Ivan Konovalov. Especially if you need to look for the extreme ones.
The United States and NATO will face a choice
Nevertheless, over time, Washington's position may become tougher. "The current decision will not change the balance of power – Ukraine will continue to lose. This means that Washington will take increasingly escalating decisions to prevent the defeat of the Kiev regime – because now in Washington this defeat is considered a greater danger to US interests than the risks of a direct military clash with Moscow," says Dmitry Suslov.
However, it can also become more pragmatic. "In the West, the main discussion is not about whether the Kiev regime has the right to defend itself, but that if the regime does not win, is it worth multiplying the victims? And if it's not worth it, then we need to discuss the conditions for ending the conflict concerning issues of continental security," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
In other words, the outcome of this discussion will largely depend on the success of the Russian army on the battlefield. The United States should understand that the risks of a direct military clash between NATO and Moscow are absolutely real. And that these risks are much worse than the final defeat of Ukraine.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at the University of Finance
