This is the latest red line that Westerners could, like the previous ones, end up crossing. Ukraine is urging its allies to allow it to strike Russian territory with their weapons, provoking a cacophony favorable to Moscow in response.
The subject deeply divides kyiv’s supporters, to the point of sometimes leading to contradictory statements within the same country.
“We note that there is no consensus on this issue in the Western camp,” noted Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Tuesday on the Izvestia television channel.
He castigated the “hotheads in the West who make absolutely irresponsible provocative statements”, facing “those who wonder if it is necessary to go further in the escalation”.
Discord
NATO is pushing Western capitals to lift restrictions that “tie the hands behind the backs of Ukrainians”, in the words of its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg.
But the chancelleries remain divided, the most reluctant – Rome and Berlin in particular – brandishing the risk of escalation, of extension of the conflict, with the risk of the use of nuclear weapons by Vladimir Putin.
History, however, shows that military aid from one power to another has never led to its entry into a conflict, according to military historian Michel Goya.
In addition, Western weapons have already been used on several occasions against Russian territory, recently against the city of Krasnodar (west), according to several Western sources.
Moscow “claimed that Crimea [annexée en 2014, NDLR] was untouchable. The Ukrainians hit it with American weapons and nothing happened,” the former French colonel told AFP.
Ukrainian frustration
The stakes, for kyiv, are fundamental with the Russian offensive in the north which threatens Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second city.
The Ukrainian army has fewer soldiers and fewer ammunition than its enemy. But could push it back with modern weapons giving it precision and long range.
kyiv “complains that the limitations of the allies facilitate the Russian capacity to acquire a strategic, operational and tactical advantage”, explains to AFP retired British general James Everard, former deputy supreme commander of NATO in Europe.
Because the Russian offensive is being orchestrated from across the border. Moscow moves troops, has batteries, takes off its planes in enviable security conditions.
kyiv has long been targeting the rear of the front, argues Ivan Klyszcz of the International Center for Defense and Security in Estonia. Strikes “essential to wear down enemy forces, disrupt supplies and logistics chains, use counter-artillery and disrupt command”.
But the question “is whether these strikes should also occur inside Russia.”
A recurring process
Since the start of the war, Western hesitation has already been observed for long-range missiles, heavy tanks and fighter planes.
Every time kyiv demands the use of Western weapons, the West initially refuses. Then Ukraine points the finger at certain chancelleries, which end up giving in. In the meantime, valuable time has been lost.
“In retrospect, we say to ourselves that if they had given up from the start, it would have been more effective,” notes Michel Goya, emphasizing that “international law authorizes the attacked country to strike the aggressor country on condition of respecting humanitarian law” .
General Everard deplores that Western leaders are “risk-averse, financially constrained and so self-deterred by Russia”.
The situation is all the more complex because it is not NATO that decides, but each country via bilateral agreements. “This produces a heterogeneous set of freedoms and constraints that are difficult to interpret.”
Next step: men
The next file, already on the table, concerns the sending of Western soldiers to Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron opened the debate at the end of February by refusing to rule out the option.
He was initially received coldly before seeing allies – Czech Republic, Poland, Baltic States in particular – join him. And some observers consider that the question is no longer if, but when, European soldiers will be deployed.
“The breaking of the taboo by President Macron has weakened Russian deterrence,” believes Ivan Klyszcz, “with many allies now raising the possibility of a form of ground presence” for technical assistance or training.
And if the option may put off some Europeans, many observers argue for maintaining strategic ambiguity, which consists of hiding from one’s enemy what one is not ready to do.
“Publicly excluding the presence of Western troops in Ukraine makes no sense […]. The mere possibility is one of the Kremlin’s greatest fears,” said Keir Giles of the think tank British Chatham House.