In a significant shift in policy, President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use US-supplied weaponry to target Russian forces operating within Russian territory. This decision follows a request from Kyiv to Washington in recent weeks as the conflict in Ukraine intensifies.

Speaking at a news conference in Prague after an informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed President Biden’s approval but stopped short of specifying whether the authorization could extend to other Russian cities and targets deeper inside Russia.

The move comes as Ukraine finds itself outgunned and outmanned on the battlefield, prompting increased pressure on Western allies to support offensive strikes against military targets inside Russia to repel Russian advances.

Blinken emphasized that the decision reflects the US’s adaptation to the evolving battleground, particularly in response to threats observed in and around the Kharkiv region, Ukraine’s second-largest city located near the Russian border.

This marks the second time this year that President Biden has relaxed his stance on weapons supplies for Ukraine, earlier agreeing to send long-range missiles known as ATACMS. However, US officials clarified that the policy still prohibits the Ukrainian military from using certain long-range weapons for deep strikes inside Russia.

President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine welcomed the decision, asserting that the use of Western-supplied arms to strike Russian territory is “a question of time.” He stressed the urgency for such actions as Ukraine faces delays in military aid, increased attacks on energy infrastructure, and Russia’s efforts to expand the frontline.

Germany and France have signaled support for Ukraine’s use of Western weapons to target military sites fueling attacks on the Kharkiv region, further aligning with Kyiv’s position.

As tensions escalate and the conflict continues to unfold, the approval for Ukraine to use US weaponry inside Russia represents a significant development in the ongoing crisis, with implications for the dynamics of the conflict and broader geopolitical relations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *