Four Key Decisions Needed to Prevent Russia from Attacking Ukraine from Sanctuaries
Four Key Decisions Needed to Prevent Russia from Attacking Ukraine from Sanctuaries
By Daniel Rice
Russia has exploited sanctuaries beyond Ukraine’s reach to launch devastating attacks for the duration of the war. It’s time to change the equation – not through indiscriminate retaliation, but with a clear message: future attacks will be met with precise responses.
For 2.5 years the Russians have used strategic assets of Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers, along with Black Sea Fleet ships to fire cruise missiles into Ukraine at civilian targets such as power plants, shopping malls, hydro-electric dams, children’s hospitals and many civilian targets.
This sustained bombing campaign represents institutionalized war crimes from a state sponsor of terror and must be stopped. Instead of providing weapons that might be able to shoot down the inbound missiles, we must provide weapons to deter the Russian bombers and fleet by going directly at them with weapons that can reach them.
If these cruise missiles were being fired for 2.5 years into Berlin or Paris, all of Europe would be demanding weapons to fight back. But Kyiv is bombed repeatedly, and the best Ukraine is given, at best, are defensive weapons to try to shoot down the cruise missiles. Meanwhile the weapons platforms with the crews of the bombers and ships stay outside of Ukraine’s range in sanctuaries. Allowing Russia these sanctuaries must end and can be ended with four key decisions.
The current situation stems from a broken promise. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons and strategic bombers under the Budapest Memorandum, with the US, UK, and Russia providing security assurances in return. Ukraine upheld its end of the bargain, only to face invasion from Russia while receiving limited support from the other signatories. Providing Ukraine with the means to defend against attacks from Russian territory isn’t just strategic—it’s fulfilling a long-standing obligation.
NATO has always held back weapons that could slow or stop the slaughter of innocent civilians, by counter-firing against the weapons platforms launching these terrorist attacks. Arming Ukraine with weapons to fight back against these attacks is not “escalation” and it would not be deemed as escalation if the targets were Berlin, Oslo, Paris, Tallinn, Riga, Warsaw or Vilnius. In those cases, the Germans, Norwegians, Estonians, Latvians and Poles would rightly claim going after the bombers and the fleet is defensive, protecting their people. Arming Ukraine, similarly, with offensive weapons to be directly used against the bombers and fleet that are attacking civilian targets should not be a debate. It should be a moral imperative that the West provide these weapons.
Western nations have already approved artillery strikes and HIMARS cluster rocket (M-26) strikes into Russia to defend against attacks launched from these sanctuaries into Ukraine. Ukraine being able to launch these strikes has likely saved Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city, from being leveled like Mariupol, Bakhmut, and other cities. As reported by CNN, HIMARS are now firing into Russia, which was finally approved, and is incredibly effective. These HIMARS cluster rockets have a range of 60km and can target anti-aircraft systems, artillery and multiple launch rocket systems firing into Ukraine, large troop formations, command and control, and transportation nodes. As reported by CNN these include HIMARS rockets with submunitions, which appear to be the M-26A1 version. Now that the threshold has been crossed of Ukraine firing rockets into Russia, we simply need longer range missiles to go after the sanctuaries that are firing the cruise missiles.
F-16s will be arriving sometime this summer in small numbers but need more defensive and offensive weapons to stop the massive air bombardment of both front-line troops and civilian targets. There are four simple decisions that can make a significant impact on the battlefield in a short period of time and can easily be implemented:
Decision #1: Approve ATACMS missiles to be fired into Russia at any firing site firing into Ukraine. Notify Russia that it is Ukraine’s right to defend against any attacks after September 1st. This will give notice, and hopefully reduce or eliminate attacks from Russia into Ukraine within range of ATACMS (300km range for MGM-140 ATACMs and 180 km for M-39 cluster missiles). ATACMS missiles are already in use in Ukraine, very effectively, and this would be new approval for Ukraine to defend against attacks from sanctuaries in Russia.
Decision #2: Provide MQ-9 Reapers armed with AMRAAM air-To-Air missiles such as AMRAAM with 300 km range. These unmanned UAVs can loiter for 40 hours and remain behind Ukrainian lines and fire at the bombers launching over 100 glide bombs per day that need to get within 40 km. These MQ-9 with AMRAAM would push the bombers past standoff range. If any Reapers are shot down the technology will fall within Ukrainian controlled areas, thus eliminating or mitigating the objection due to survivability and technology loss. This fleet of MQ-9 Reapers will augment the limited number of new F-16s arriving shortly.
Decision #3: Provide Tomahawk missiles with a range of 1,500 miles/2,400 kilometers, for use within all areas of occupied Ukraine and within the Black Sea. Additional approve the new use of Tomahawks against Russian air base sanctuaries from which the bombers fly from after September 1, 2024. The goal if this is not to retaliate against all bases that have launched in the past, but to prevent future Russia bases to be used to launch new cruise missiles. These can also be fired at ships in the Black Sea Fleet with capabilities to fire cruise missiles into Ukraine. Normally the Tomahawk is a sea-based either on ships or submarines. But the U.S. Army has ground based launchers capable of firing Tomahawks. The U.S. military fired over 800 Tomahawks into Iraq during the 2003 liberation of Iraq and it is a standard weapon fired by the U.S. military in combat operations. The United States, United Kingdom and Japan all possess Tomahawks. Tomahawks are now being deployed to NATO to deter a Russian invasion. They should be approved to defend against the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. Tomahawks would only be fired at bases in Russia or the Black Sea Fleet against any bases or ships that fire cruise missiles into Ukraine after September 1, 2024. Of course, Ukraine would prefer to use them to launch at many military targets. This arrangement, to only fire if fired upon from Russia, has a much higher likelihood of being approved that all out approval.
Decision #4: Approve SM-6 missiles with a range of 250 miles/400 km, capable of hitting cruise missiles at long range like the KH-101s that were fired from Tu-95 and Tu-160 and flew from the Caspian Sea targeting the largest children’s hospital in Kyiv. These can be fired as ground to air, or ground to ship/ground.
Even a small number of Reapers with AMRAAM, and Tomahawks and SM-6s will force Russia to change its warfighting strategy. If the weapons are limited to only attack aircraft, bases or ships that attack after September 1, 2024, it might be enough deterrent to stop the Russia air campaign against civilian targets from sanctuaries in Russia and the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.
These decisions could have, and likely should have, been made over two years ago. If they were, many civilians, including children, would likely be alive today. The Russian attacks and destruction are more and more brazen and brutal. The Kremenchuk Shopping mall, the Kakohovka Dam and the Children’s’ Hospital Kyiv are just a few of the thousands of examples.
If Oslo was bombed for 2 ½ years with cruise missiles from Russia strategic bombers and the Russian Baltic Fleet, Norway would not merely be requesting Patriots to shoot down the inbound cruise missiles. Norway would want to go after the aircraft, the bases and the ships that were firing all these cruise missiles against soft, civilian targets. These attacks are war crimes and are in fact, genocide. Secretary General of NATO Jans Stoltenberg is Norwegian. He would not tolerate Oslo civilians being bombed for 2 ½ years, but he tolerates Kyiv being bombed for 2 ½ years without giving weapons to go after the bombers and the fleet sending them.
Russia is mobilizing its industrial base, and despite the sanctions, is increasing its production of cruise missiles. Russia is terrorizing Ukrainians every day. The attack on Kyiv’s largest children’s hospital, the day before the NATO conference, should convince the west that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. No matter what happens in the ground war, the air attacks on civilian targets must be stopped. Russia only understands force.
