It is impossible to beat on the Kremlin and where it is possible: what prohibitions on their weapons leave the United States
"If someone thinks that we should be in a position in a weak position - to sit and wait for death for us, then you will not wait for our death or our weakness. And it is better to be on the side of Ukraine. Because more we can destroy Military goals in the Russian Federation, the sooner this war will end with the victory of Ukraine, " - recently said the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also substantiates the same opinion.
During all meetings, he emphasizes that there should be no prohibitions on the use of Western weapons for strikes in Russia, since it is about Ukraine's protection. The American edition of The Wall Street Journal has recently stated that Ukraine appealed to the White House requesting to allow the US weapons for military purposes in the Russian Federation. But there they stated the constant position: weapons from the United States to use only for defense, as well as within Ukraine.
According to US National Security Council, John Kirby, "the US policy has not changed" the British The Times that the US ban will be banned from the US in the Russian Federation in the Russian Federation in the Russian Federation increased differences between allies. Deliveries of long -range weapons from foreign partners have been accompanied by political restrictions outlined by the borders of Ukraine. And above all from the US.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot strike American samples on military facilities in the Russian Federation, even if it is a threat to civilian population and used to destroy critical infrastructure. This problem has become more apparent in connection with the onset of the Russian Army in the Kharkiv direction. Before starting hostilities, the Russian Federation accumulates forces on the border. They could be a target for the Ukrainian forces to prevent new attacks.
As well as decision-making centers, logistics centers and warehouses of fuel and lubricants. "So it is not an offensive, but about protection," Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented. "Everyone understands that the offensive of Russian troops into the territory of Kharkiv region became possible due to prohibitions and restrictions," says political scientist Petro Oleshchuk. "Thanks to this, Russia can collect their troops at any point of the border.
Thus, this prohibition instead of restricting Escalation - on the contrary contributes to Russia. Kharkiv is located near the border with the Russian Federation, the city is regularly fired at rockets and cabin. Aviation departures are made from aerodromes and other military facilities in the territory of Belgorod and Kursk regions. It is clear that as soon as Ukraine receives permission - it will systematically destroy these sites and the situation will change.
"Experts say, above all, the Armed Forces of Ukraine should take under fire control of the border regions of the Russian Federation - Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk regions where troops can accumulate. That is, to ask for permission to use rockets with a radius of 50-70 km. The situation is plasticine, it can be tried to twist it as it should. Recently, they have been discussed in which area you can use this weapon. Not just on the Kremlin or Red Square. Namely on specific locations.
But such approval is confidential, " - said in a conversation with focus the expert of the Ukrainian Institute of the Future Ivan Stupak. The discussion of permits to Ukraine in the part of the Russian Federation was conducted at the highest political level of both the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. Initially, NATO Secretary General.
Stoltenberg urged member countries to abolish restrictions on the use of their weapons in the Russian Federation, and later the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Alliance called on the governments of all NATO member states to allow Ukraine to beat Western weapons in Russia. The Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Finland have been supported by this permission. rather than the borders of Ukraine. Similarly, as Russia is striking within Ukraine . . .
" - said the Minister of Foreign British David Kemeron on May 2 on May 2. Further, the heads of France and Germany also supported the idea. It is as if we say to them, "We give you a weapon, but you can't use it to protect yourself," French President Emmanuel Macron said.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz, who until recently was one of the most restrained Western leaders in this matter, also said that Ukraine has every right "in accordance with international law" to impress goals in Russia to protect itself. Italy and Spain were opposed to cancellation. Most of the comments of European leaders and experts were directed towards US Presidential Administration Joe Baiden, as the United States publicly refuses to change the ban on Ukraine for goals in Russia.
"Washington, who gave the bulk of Kiev's fire power, did not want to approve the use of his missiles outside the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine because NATO could be drawn into a direct conflict with the Russian Federation, the largest nuclear super -state. However, it allowed Ukraine to use its powerful ballistic ATACMS land base rockets to strike military facilities in the Crimea and other objects on the battlefield in a war -covered Ukraine, "said The Times said.
"First, the United States indeed consumes that the Russian Federation has nuclear weapons, 6,000 nuclear warheads, from which part are active. it is generally ". That is, to maintain contacts with the Russian Federation to connect it with Western civilization with a thin ribbon. And not least, to control the steps of the Russian Federation towards Iran and North Korea, so that new tension cells are not formed.
They are afraid to break that principle The shaky balance that remains, ”says Ivan Stupak. It is the logic of "red lines", which the US did not want to give up for a long time. Political scientist Oleshchuk says this. "It is that it is possible to restrain the so -called escalation, the uncontrolled use of weapons during a military conflict, if you set the rules of conducting this war," he explains.
- From the US point of view, Ukraine beats American weapons in Ukraine - this is considered to be self -defense If in the Russian Federation-it is possible to interpret differently, for example, as an act of aggression by the United States. To prevent the US involvement in a direct military clash with Russia. It is an impossible task. " It was about victory, not restraint recently that the leaders of Ukraine - partners of Ukraine - have recently begun to speak.
In addition, the concept of "red lines" obviously does not work. Recently, Ukraine has been striking in the territory of the Russian Federation, not only in oil refineries, but also in military facilities, in particular, strategic, such as enabled radar stations. And the Kremlin only responds with angry statements. And these statements are often politically on the Kremlin's hand.
"We see that there is no consensus in the Western camp on this issue," - commented on the discussion between US and European politicians, Russian ruler Putin Putin Dmitry Peskov. "The effect of the crowd was to work. When the parties who agree to these blows are more than those who disagree. It is a purely psychological reaction. Remember as at school - one remained in the lesson and everyone goes, you begin to doubt.
Blinken has already said confusing But the diplomatic "We are not delighted, but what we can do. " Indeed, on the eve of Ukraine's resolution, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken spoke to use US weapons, who, after returning from Kiev, justified the likelihood of a ban on. Also, more and more, the voice in support of Congress, in particular, in the ranks of Democrats.
Supported the removal of restrictions for the Armed Forces and Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Republican Congressman Mike Johnson. "We need to allow Ukraine to wage the war as it sees fit. They should be able to repel. And I believe that trying to control the efforts at the micro level is not a very good policy for us," he said in a comment for "Voice America.
" And here in the White House press service reported that the United States would allow Ukraine to use weapons produced in the United States to strike in Russia in Russia, which are used to attack Kharkiv region. "Baiden's administration secretly gave Ukraine permission to strike in Russia - exclusively in the Kharkiv area - using the weapons provided.
Thursday three officials and two other people who are familiar with this step were stated on Thursday, which is a serious change that will help Ukraine It is better to protect the second largest city, " - said Politico.
In other words, Ukraine will be able to use the weapons provided to the United States to knock down the Russian missiles running towards Kharkiv, using them by troops that are accumulated near the Russian border near the city, or Russian bombers who launch bombs towards the Ukrainian territory. At the same time, the US policy has not changed to Russia's ban on long -range blows.