Abnormal war: why the ban on strikes in the territory of the Russian Federation contradicts military logic

The exogressman and a retired aviation colonel Adam Kinzinger in the CNN column criticizes the United States's cautious position on giving Ukraine weapons. In his opinion, so they do not wage-this is contrary to any combat logic. There seems to have a doctrine in the National Security Council at the Baiden Administration: the rejection of escalation. These "de-escalators" seem to be deeply concerned that any strengthening of Ukraine's support can lead to the Third World War.

France and Germany have taken an important step on Tuesday, joining the United Kingdom and other countries, saying that they are supplying the weapons they supply Ukraine can be used for strikes in Russia. As it should be expected, Russian President Vladimir Putin replied that these steps can lead to "serious consequences", especially for "small and densely populated countries. " Putin has been put forward many times, often referring to Russian nuclear weapons, as the support of Ukraine's support.

The US should stop treating it seriously. Let's go back to the history of the last few years. Ukraine invited Javelins and Silegers before the full -scale war. Initially, it did not receive the desired large number due to the fears of escalation. In the end, she got more, used them effectively, and then got even more. No nuclear war took place. After the victory in the battle for Kiev, Ukraine invited MiG-29, which Poland agreed to provide in exchange for Western fighters.

Baiden's administration initially blocked it, but later conceded, and the nuclear war did not happen. Ukraine has invited F-16 fighters to protect its sky. The administration first said "no", then changed its position, and the nuclear war did not happen. Ukraine invited Petriot missiles to protect against merciless Russian air attacks. The administration first said "no", then changed its position, and the nuclear war did not happen. Many lives were saved.

Ukraine has invited Himars missile installations to attack Russian supply lines. The administration first said "no", then changed its position, and the nuclear war did not happen. Ukraine invited Abrams and Bradley BMPs for a positional war in the East. The administration first said "no", then changed its position, and the nuclear war did not happen. Ukraine has invited ATACMS missiles approximately 190 miles to attack Russian goals.

The administration first said "no", then changed its position, and the nuclear war did not happen. In almost every case, Russia threatened with escalation of conflict, NATO attack or nuclear weapons. Each time, Blef was revealed and Ukraine was able to protect its territory better. Although Russian threats should not be treated lightly, history shows us that these threats are often empty.

During the Cold War, nuclear threats were also not uncommon, but it did not prevent the United States from promoting its foreign policy interests. Imagine, if we from the very beginning provided Ukraine with all of the above weapons? After the counter -offensive in 2022, Russia was in defense, was disorganized and demoralized, trying hard to recruit new troops. Ukraine could complete the struggle using all of the above, or at least a much more successful counter -offensive in 2023.

The war could end. There are those who say that the careful calibration of Biden administration has allowed the United States to give Ukraine more and more fire power without causing a Russian reaction at the same time. But the war works wrong. The idea of ​​using nuclear weapons has proved its inability. It is important to remember all this, as Ukraine repeatedly requests permission to strike in military facilities in Russia through American weapons.

They are denied, but let's make a prediction: after all, this permission will be granted. So why wait? Why delay while Ukrainians continue to die? It was possible to understand the ban on attacks on Russian land when Ukraine tried to protect Kiev. There was no point in spending strength on "retribution strikes", directing all the forces to defend their land.

However, as soon as the war entered the exhaustion phase after the Russians left Kiev, and the fighting in eastern Ukraine turned into an artillery duel, the preservation of this ban was a full absurd. Right now, Ukrainians are forced to endure Russian air strikes using planning bombs. Despite the fact that Ukrainians knew the source of these attacks, they could not attack these points. Of course, the escalation management is important, and Ukraine's support should not be careless.

The United States, in fatal assistance, deserves a place at the table of negotiations and to participate in how this assistance should be used. However, since Ukraine faces an existential crisis, it should be given greater freedom to determine how best to protect its land and save its people's lives.

We have repeatedly heard from Ukrainian soldiers of the story of how Russian columns attacked, were reflected and retreated to a safe Russian territory to regroup, eat hot food, discuss plans and attack again. In the logical war, it is at the time of the retreat and regrouping of the enemy that you have to double the power and strike a more powerful blow, creating chaos, panic and destroying the battle and moral spirit of the enemy.

Ukraine will not be able to win if the Russians can attack civilian objects and declare a "time out" in their territory. Ukraine fights primarily for its survival, but also for the collective event and world order. Given such serious consequences on the world stage, Biden administration should formulate or at least have a clear internal understanding of what the US seeks to achieve through their support.

A clear strategic goal that the US could not set in Vietnam and Afghanistan is the key to winning.

But do the United States support Ukraine's victory? If so, what does it look like and what to do to achieve these goals as soon as possible? Are they just supporting the war for exhaustion until Russia is sitting at the negotiation table? As any military expert tells you-the general (or sergeant, if it has gone), the destruction of the enemy, of course, is the most important element of victory, whether in direct combat, or where it is grouped, plans or leads or leads war.

The idea that Russia can, in fact, consider its territory asylum from American weapons, is contrary to the purpose of Ukraine's victory. Ukraine is not allowed to attack legal military objects because of the paralyzing fear of escalation, despite the fact that the law on armed conflicts provides for the right to defend themselves in this way.