Categories
Audio Sources - Full Text Articles Featured Posts

Ukraine must be allowed to strike back against targets inside Russia

When will the Ukrainian military finally retaliate for the ongoing destruction of their own country by striking back at targets inside Russia? The short answer is: When Ukraine’s partners allow them to do so.

Many people may not have noticed, but the United States and Ukraine’s other Western allies have been protecting Russia from Ukrainian counterattack ever since the invasion began on February 24. Ukraine has a legal right to hit back inside Russia, but is currently not being permitted to do so by partners whose support Kyiv cannot afford to lose. The US and others have placed limits on acceptable targets for the arms they provide, while also demanding assurances from Kyiv that these weapons will not be used inside Russia itself.

The current approach grants Putin impunity to continue attacking and escalating without fear of a proportionate response. It has resulted in a surrealistic war where the aggressor benefits from guarantees that any destruction will be limited to the territory of his victim.

This is particularly evident in the devastating recent Russian attacks on Ukraine’s critical civilian infrastructure, which will keep getting worse until Ukraine regains its right of retaliation. If Ukraine received the appropriate weapons and a green light from its Western partners to hit back against Russia’s own infrastructure, Moscow would likely think twice about its current bombing campaign.

Today’s war is arguably not the first time Russia has benefited from restrictions imposed by the West on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. In 1994, the US and UK partnered with Moscow in the nuclear disarmament of post-Soviet Ukraine. There were a number of good reasons for this step, but the West should have provided Ukraine with a conventional deterrent force in exchange. It should do so now.

Self-defense is a basic right of every nation and includes proportionate lawful retaliation. This is essential in order to deter international aggression. Ukraine’s partners should be facilitating the country’s ability to exercise this right, not undermining it.

Restricting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself could lead to alarming international security consequences far from the front lines of the current conflict. It is one thing for the United States to restrain NATO allies which it is directly protecting, but it is quite another for the US to limit the right to self-defense of a friendly non-NATO country that it is helping only at arm’s length. This could establish a dangerous precedent and invite the invasion of other US allies.

Subscribe to UkraineAlert

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

2015-08-20T120000Z_1614809784_GF10000177

  • Name

     

    First

     

    Last

  • Email*
  • Comments
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Why does the West protect Russia? The reasons given for this have often been less than logical. Some have argued that allowing Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia, or even arming Ukraine enough to win on its own turf, would provide Putin with a pretext for attacking further, as if he needed one. Instead, Putin has been granted impunity to attack and escalate at will. Unsurprisingly, he has done so.

The only reason Russia enjoys “escalation dominance,” to use the doctrinal phrase, is because the West keeps granting it. This is based on false assumptions. Russia may have more weapons, but Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. They believe in their cause and are prepared to fight hard for it. The same cannot be said for Russians. This is the simple reality ignored by Western policymakers when they adopt a defeatist-leaning doctrine.

The flawed thinking behind current doctrines and policies also helps to explain why so many Western governments planned on Ukraine collapsing in a matter of days. It sheds light on why they did not arm Ukraine properly in advance to deter the attack, and why subsequent efforts to arm Ukraine have consistently fallen short. There has also been a widespread reluctance to voice support for a Ukrainian victory, reflecting the mistaken belief that too much Ukrainian success would be dangerous.

The Biden Administration appears to have settled in for a war of attrition, but this approach risks weakening the alliance in support of Ukraine. Attrition undermines NATO morale and increases the prospects of a defeat that would discredit the entire alliance.

Crucially, attrition leaves Ukraine and Europe to bear the main burden of a protracted war, with Ukraine suffering destruction and Europe paying for sanctions. These costs are already nearing one trillion US dollars for Ukraine and another trillion for Europe, according to some estimates. Europeans find themselves confronted with the prospect of a perilous winter heating season and a new wave of Ukrainian refugees. Meanwhile, many Americans are angry about Europe’s failure to share the burden of arming Ukraine.

If Ukraine had been given sufficient weapons for a fair fight, the country would likely have secured victory long ago. Indeed, if Kyiv had received enough arms before Putin launched his full-scale invasion, there would probably not even have been a war at all. This is the cost of ambivalence.

Overly cautious Western policies have clearly failed to restrain Putin. Yet the realities of a losing war are now restraining him anyway. He can see that his invasion is not going according to plan. Putin wanted a short, victorious war but finds himself embroiled in the largest European conflict since World War II. The Russian military shows little enthusiasm for the war and may refuse to follow orders if he goes too far. This could have fatal consequences for the Putin regime, which is significantly more brittle than people may assume. The defeatist perspective in many Western capitals fails to take these realities into account.

The Ukrainian military has already demonstrated that it is capable of defeating Russia on the battlefield. Ukraine will win the war if we let it. This means providing Ukraine with the weapons it needs in the necessary quantities without delay. It also means lifting restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to hit Russian targets. In order to defeat Putin and end the war, Ukraine must be allowed to strike back inside Russia.

Ira Straus is chair of the Center for War/Peace Studies and senior advisor at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center. He was a Fulbright professor of international relations in Moscow in 1997-98 and 2001-02.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Ukraine must be allowed to strike back against targets inside Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Spread the News
Categories
Audio Sources - Full Text Articles Featured Posts

U.S. Supreme Court clears way for lawmakers to get Trump“s tax returns

2022-11-22T19:50:54Z

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the release of Donald Trump’s tax returns to a congressional committee, handing a defeat to the Republican former president who had called the Democratic-led panel’s request politically motivated.

The justices denied Trump’s Oct. 31 emergency application to block a lower court’s ruling that upheld a request by the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee for the tax records as a justified part of the panel’s legislative work while his lawyers prepared an appeal. No justice publicly dissented from the decision.

The fight over the committee’s request is one of many legal woes for Trump as he moves forward with another run for the presidency in 2024. Trump last week announced the launch of his candidacy.

Tuesday’s order superseded one issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on Nov. 1 that had effectively paused the dispute and prevented the panel from obtaining the Trump returns while the court considered how to proceed.

Trump was the first president in four decades years not to release his tax returns as he sought to keep secret the details of his wealth and the activities of his real estate company, the Trump Organization.

The Ways and Means panel told the Supreme Court in a legal filing that siding with Trump would harm the constitutional authority of a co-equal branch of government “by in effect preventing Congress from completing any investigation involving a former president whenever there are allegations that the investigation was politically motivated.

Related Galleries:

Former U.S. President Donald Trump approaches the podium to announce that he will once again run for U.S. president in the 2024 U.S. presidential election during an event at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. November 15, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

Former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a rally to support Republican candidates ahead of midterm elections, in Dayton, Ohio, U.S. November 7, 2022. REUTERS/Gaelen Morse/File Photo
Spread the News
Categories
Audio Sources - Full Text Articles

The new face of Democratic Party leadership

shirley-kennedy-100x100.jpg

Keep Palmer Report going! Our articles are all 100% free to read, with no forced subscriptions and nothing hidden behind paywalls. If you value our content, you’re welcome to pay for it:

Pay $5 to Palmer Report:

Pay $25 to Palmer Report:

Pay $75 to Palmer Report:


Keep Palmer Report going! Our articles are all 100% free to read, with no forced subscriptions and nothing hidden behind paywalls. If you value our content, you’re welcome to pay for it:

Pay $5 to Palmer Report:

Pay $25 to Palmer Report:

Pay $75 to Palmer Report:

Sign up for the Palmer Report Mailing List.


The possibility of Hakeem Jeffries leading the Democrats is not only refreshing, but also needed. Pelosi announced her intention to step down last week, and while Pelosi has done a phenomenal job as speaker, it is time to let the younger folks see what they can do. Class act that he appears to be, Jeffries thanked Jim Clyburn, Steny Hoyer, and Nancy Pelosi during his appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” all of whom support the leadership role for him. What exactly will Jeffries bring to the leadership role? A fresh perspective for one thing.

As far as we are into the Twenty-first Century, it is a damned shame that any article still references “the first Black” anything, but that is exactly what Jeffries will be if he is elected to leadership. Jeffries represents New York District 8. His slogan is “Hakeem will always put people over politics.” He is eloquent, and he has no qualms about reaching across the aisle to get things done. When asked on CNN how he will be able to work with McCarthy should he win the Republican speakership, Jeffries said that he “has a much warmer relationship with Steve Scalise” but that he’s open to working with any and everyone.

Being a “first” isn’t new for Jeffries, as in 2019, he became the youngest chairman of the Democratic Caucus. Jeffries is already looking ahead, outlining in his announcement letter that “more must be done to combat inflation, defend our democracy, secure reproductive freedom, welcome new Americans, promote equal protection under the law, and improve public safety throughout this country.” These are issues about which ALL Americans should care, regardless of who puts them forth. The retiring leadership aren’t the only ones support Jeffries. According to CNN, Joyce Beatty, the Congressional Black Caucus chair, expects that caucus to throw its support behind Jeffries as well. Echoing Beatty, Mark Pocan, former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair, said: “I’m a huge fan of Hakeem. I think he’s extremely intelligent, he’s a good person to bring consensus among the caucus. I think he’ll be an outstanding leader.”



Jeffries already has his sights set on 2024, according to Real Clear Politics, which quoted Jeffries as saying the number one priority of Democrats will be taking back the House. Let’s hope the Republicans don’t burn it down while they have it. Jeffries is “committed” to ensuring the Democrats take back the House “for the good of the American people.” Who seriously believes Republicans will accomplish one thing that benefits the American people during their tenure? Already, all they talk about are investigations and removing people they don’t like from committee assignments. Neither move will benefit the people and will serve only to satisfy Republican blood lust.


Hopefully, the new, younger set of leadership will drive that home for the American people. Should Jeffries succeed in this bid to become leader, he is poised to be joined by Katherine Clark as Whip and Pete Aguilar as caucus chair. We need these new leaders’ voices in Washington and across the country. These young people can help to bring about change that this country so desperately needs.

Keep Palmer Report going! Our articles are all 100% free to read, with no forced subscriptions and nothing hidden behind paywalls. If you value our content, you’re welcome to pay for it:

Pay $5 to Palmer Report:

Pay $25 to Palmer Report:

Pay $75 to Palmer Report:

Write for the Palmer Report Community Section.


Keep Palmer Report going! Our articles are all 100% free to read, with no forced subscriptions and nothing hidden behind paywalls. If you value our content, you’re welcome to pay for it:

Pay $5 to Palmer Report:

Pay $25 to Palmer Report:

Pay $75 to Palmer Report:

The post The new face of Democratic Party leadership appeared first on Palmer Report.

Spread the News