Ukraine has U.S. weapons it can’t use in Russian territory. Will that change?

Ukraine is trying to fend off a Russian offensive in the northeastern border region of Kharkiv, but it can only use its U.S.-provided firepower on its own side of the border when trying to thwart attacks.

That’s because Washington has put guardrails around where its weapons are to be used, and that is in Ukraine only — though the pressure is building for the U.S. to give Kyiv a freer hand to operate.

Ukrainian politicians travelled to the U.S. capital this week to press the Biden administration to change its thinking on the issue. And the U.S. Helsinki Commission, a federal agency that promotes human rights and military security, said the U.S. should “not only allow, but encourage” Ukraine to use these weapons across the Russian border.

But analysts don’t necessarily see Kyiv as being likely to get the sign-off it’s seeking, given Washington’s worries over escalation risks and the so-called red lines around the conflict — that NATO will stay out of Russia, but also will defend “every inch” of its members’ territory. Though Ukraine is not part of NATO, it lies on the edge of several members of the military alliance.

“These constraints were established right at the beginning,” said Janice Stein, a foreign policy expert and the Belzberg professor of conflict management at the University of Toronto. “And so far, they are being respected.”

Together, those conditions leave Ukraine trying to manage the threats against it without crossing those same red lines.

“This whole conflict has been driven by the U.S. policy to try to help Ukraine defend, without getting into a confrontation with Russia by helping Ukraine attack,” Wesley Clark, a retired U.S. general and former supreme commander of NATO, told CNN. “And so, Ukraine is being forced back. Its forces are being bled out.”

Added stress for Kyiv

Kyiv rushed reinforcements to the Kharkiv region amid a wave of Russian attacks — including airstrikes, shelling and troops on the ground — that have forced thousands of Ukrainians living near the border to flee. 

The fighting has been fierce, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy telling ABC News that hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers have been wounded in recent days.

“A lot of guys gave their lives,” Zelenskyy told the network Thursday, the day he met with military leaders in Kharkiv and visited injured soldiers.

Ukrainian officials say the armed forces have stopped Russian advancements in Kharkiv, and NATO’s top commander, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, has said Russia does not have sufficient forces in place to make “a strategic breakthrough” there.

Yet Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Friday that his forces are aiming to create a buffer zone against Ukrainian attacks on the Russian Belgorod region, which he said were the reason for the Kharkiv offensive.

And he said Moscow has no plans to capture the city of Kharkiv itself, the regional capital.

‘A predictable crisis’

The U of T’s Stein said Ukraine is dealing with the urgent problems in Kharkiv despite dwindling air-defence supplies and ammunition, which Western allies are working to replenish — but which should have happened sooner.

“This was a predictable crisis,” said Stein, who believes Ukraine is likely to similarly face a tough summer, as Russia presses its advantage against its outgunned neighbour.

Ukraine’s military challenges aren’t limited to the equipment it needs to oust Russian forces from its lands, but also the people it needs on the front line. The government has faced hard choices in deciding who to call to join the fight, and has ended up lowering the age that men can be drafted for the military.

Getting new troops battle-ready carries an escalation concern, as well: The New York Times reported that NATO is eyeing sending its trainers directly into Ukraine, to help prepare incoming soldiers closer to the front line rather than from facilities outside the country.

Pressure, but no policy change

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kyiv this past week, arriving days after the assault on Kharkiv began. 

When asked about the issue of the Washington-sent weapons, the diplomat gave an ambiguous answer.

“We have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately, Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war,” he said. 

“And we will continue to back Ukraine with the equipment that it needs to succeed — that it needs to win.”

Blinken’s answer may have given the impression of a potential shift, but a day later, a U.S. State Department spokesperson told a press briefing that U.S. policy on the matter had not changed. And on Friday, White House national spokesperson John Kirby further affirmed that the Biden administration does not encourage or enable attacks with U.S.-supplied weapons inside Russia.

Tymofiy Mylovanov, a former Ukrainian economy minister, said Blinken’s earlier comments suggest Washington is at least hearing the feedback on the issue.

“My hunch is that the policy has not changed, but they are now under pressure and considering changing and realizing it,” Mylovanov said via email.

A policy change would allow Ukraine to deal with Russian threats from afar, including targeting groupings of Russia troops, tanks and supplies before they cross the border, he said.

“We need the U.S. missiles to strike those locations because they are faster, have higher payload and more difficult to intercept,” Mylovanov said.

George Barros, the Russia team lead at the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War think-tank, agrees that the U.S. should allow for Ukraine to strike threats outside its border.

“The policy debate is approaching a pivotal moment,” he told CBC News via email. “I hope the administration changes the policy sooner, rather than later.”

In terms of possible escalation risks if this were to happen, Barros said there is “very little that Putin can do the escalate his war in Ukraine that he has not already done.”