Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
President Biden has confirmed that he is considering whether to allow Ukraine to use US-made long-range weapons inside Russia.
Let’s bring you up to speed: Earlier today, top Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill urged President Biden to lift restrictions on Ukraine, allowing them to use US-made weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory. In a letter, the lawmakers stated, “It is far past time the administration reverses course and lifts the remaining restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-provided weapons against legitimate military targets in Russia.”
What’s going on now: When reporters asked about a potential policy switch, President Biden responded, saying, “We’re working that out right now.” This echoes other top US officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who is currently in Kyiv. Earlier, Blinken said the US and UK would be holding talks with Zelensky to discuss the possibility of the US lifting restrictions.
What Zelensky previously said: Last week in Germany, during a meeting with Western defense officials, President Zelensky renewed his call for lifting restrictions. He said, “We need to have this long-range capability, not only on the divided territory of Ukraine but also on the Russian territory, so that Russia is motivated to seek peace. We need to make Russian cities and even Russian soldiers think about what they need: peace or Putin.”
What Russia is saying: In response to reports that the United States was considering adjusting its restrictions on US-made weapons being used to strike deeper into Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia’s responese “will be appropriate.” He continued, “Every such decision made by the collective West and then imputed to Ukraine is an additional confirmation of the justification, necessity and lack of alternative to the Special military operation.”
