The West is debating how far Ukraine is allowed to fire. In view of new Russian missiles, the USA is beginning to question its position.
Berlin – “Absurd,” says Norbert Röttgen, referring to Vladimir Putin’s threats to NATO. Russia is threatening severe consequences if Ukraine is attacked with long-range Western weapons. The CDU politician in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the German Bundestag published his opinion on his Facebook page: “Our support for Ukraine is in line with international law and serves to restore peace in Europe. This also applies to military targets on Russian territory,” for which some commentators denounce him as a warmonger. However, the opposition politician is in line with the federal government.
Federal Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius (SPD) believes that international law would be upheld if individual NATO partners allowed Ukraine to use the weapons they supplied against targets on Russian territory – for example, ATACMS missiles. The USA and Great Britain would be free to “decide this” with regard to the weapons they supplied, said Pistorius, as the Central German Broadcasting (MDR) reported. This is their business, said the SPD politician. “International law allows this.”
The USA wanted to move “heaven and earth” – Selenskyj is waiting for it
The use of Western weapons has been a simmering dispute between all three parties involved since the Russians’ advance in eastern Ukraine was slowed but not stopped. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky never tires of castigating his Western supporters for their hesitation and saying that the fate of the free world depends on it. However, at the start of a meeting of more than 40 states in Ramstein, Germany, in April 2022, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd James Austin announced that he wanted to move “heaven and earth,” as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) had reported.
“It would be downright absurd if an aggressor state could rely on being able to launch attacks safely from a safe zone across the border and always being able to rely on a safe retreat in its own country. That would contradict any logic of self-defense.”
In view of the constant Russian advance, Zelenskyj seems to be waiting for just that. Germany is keeping a low profile – which is clearly evident from Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s (SPD) rejection of the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. For the invasion of Russian territory near Kursk, Ukraine is said to have used Marder infantry fighting vehicles supplied by Germany. The German government’s position is unequivocal.
“We are jointly convinced that Ukraine has the right under international law to defend itself against these attacks. To do so, it can use the weapons supplied for this purpose in accordance with its international legal obligations, including those supplied by us,” said German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit at the end of May. According to international lawyers, the right to defense extends beyond territorial borders, and the origin of the weapons used is also unlikely to play a role.
German weapons used against Putin in Ukraine war without any international legal concerns
As the Federal Ministry of Defense stated, the question of long range only concerns countries that have supplied these specific weapons or types of ammunition. German systems are excluded due to their shorter range. Therefore, there is no need for any restrictions by the federal government. The traffic light coalition had already classified its actions under international law in May of the first year of the war. At that time, the only question under discussion was the legality of arms deliveries.
“Decisions on the export of war weapons and certain high-value goods intended for Ukraine to support its legitimate self-defense against a war of aggression that violates international law are currently being made regularly at management level by the Federal Chancellery and the ministries concerned. This corresponds to the urgency of the current situation. In the Federal Government’s view, the deliveries are being made in accordance with applicable international law,” Susanne Baumann, State Secretary in the Federal Foreign Office, said in response to a question from Parliament.
“Victory plan for Ukraine” contains attractive targets in Russia’s core territory
However, President Selenskyj had repeatedly urged to stop Russian missile attacks, with attacks on Russian launch bases located in the Russian hinterland. Selenskyj’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak presented a list of possible targets in Washington a few days ago, such as the Hamburg Evening Paper currently reported. This is supposed to be the “victory plan for Ukraine”, as Selenskyj is said to have expressed it.
The reaction from the Kremlin is to threaten that the US, NATO and the Europeans would be at war with Russia by releasing their weapons, as the Hamburg Evening Paper Germany would become a party to the war “if we – of course only hypothetically – actively intervened in the war, for example if uniformed German soldiers fought alongside Ukrainian soldiers,” says Marco Buschmann (FDP). The Federal Minister of Justice already considered Germany’s position on international law to be secure in May 2022, as he published on his ministry portal.
Restraint towards Putin “would contradict any logic of self-defense”
“But if we support Ukraine in defending itself, for example by supplying weapons, because it has been unjustly attacked, we will not become a party to the war,” said Buschmann. Russia should not claim a “retreat area in its own country” for itself, says Matthias Herdegen to the legal magazine Legal Tribune Online: “It would be downright absurd if an aggressor state could rely on being able to launch attacks safely from a safe zone across the border and always being able to rely on a safe retreat in its own country.”
This would contradict “every logic of self-defense,” said the international law professor at the University of Bonn. A Marder armored personnel carrier could not provide any legal grounds for attack; the German government was convinced of this at the beginning of the Ukraine war.
However, there is a lack of “awareness of the historical significance of this conflict and of the central role that Germany must play in it,” criticised Ralf Fücks to the ZDFThe managing partner of the think tank “Center for Liberal Modernity” complains that the West still seems to lack any kind of goal. In view of the lack of prospect of an early end to the war, Fücks demanded that the restrictions on the use of Western weapons be lifted once and for all.
Again MDR quoted the German Minister of Defense, he is not intimidated by Russian threats. “Putin’s threats are Putin’s threats. There is no need to say more. He threatens whenever he likes and entices whenever he thinks it is right.” According to the broadcaster, Pistorius explained that Putin has repeatedly threatened in recent years. The aim is to prevent Western states from supporting Ukraine. However, they must provide Ukraine with everything it needs to regain its territory.
F-16 deployment in Ukraine war as a clear example of empty Russian threats with red lines
Most recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned against the use of Western F-16 fighter jets. According to him, their ability to carry nuclear weapons alone was enough to cross a red line. Although the F-16s have been proven to have flown attacks, there has actually been no drastic Russian reaction. Another reason for a revision of Western tactics could be Russia’s current rearmament.
The magazine Forbes reported that Russia has just received 200 Fateh-360 ballistic missiles from Iran. This would mean an escalation of the war in Ukraine – “and could backfire for Russia,” as Forbes writes. The West’s continued reticence towards Russia might then indeed seem “absurd”, as CDU politician Röttgen flippantly judges; but at least its logic then becomes questionable – which the Americans probably also see this way now. According to Forbes Antony Blinken acknowledged that the arrival of this Fateh-360 at least justified another discussion about the restrictions.
According to the news channel NBC In any case, the US Secretary of State spoke of a “dramatic escalation” regarding the delivery of Iranian missiles to the Russian invasion troops.
#NATO #weapons #Russia #legal