The NATO Military Committee chair and other NATO officials have expressed support for Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons to strike targets within Russia

The NATO Military Committee chair and other NATO officials have expressed support for Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons to strike targets within Russia. Their backing is rooted in several key reasons related to Ukraine’s right to self-defense, the strategic necessity of weakening Russian military capabilities, and the need to deter further aggression.

Self-Defense and Deterrence

Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons is seen as a legitimate form of self-defense. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure have been under constant threat from Russian missile strikes and artillery. By targeting Russian military assets and logistical hubs within Russia, Ukraine aims to diminish the offensive capabilities of the Russian military, thus protecting its own territory and civilian population. NATO officials believe that allowing Ukraine to take a more proactive stance could serve as a deterrent, making the cost of continued aggression higher for Russia.

Strategic Military Advantage

Supporting Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons is also viewed as a way to shift the balance of power on the battlefield. Russia has a significant advantage in terms of artillery and missile capabilities. By enabling Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, NATO aims to level the playing field, forcing Russia to divert resources to protect its own assets. This strategy could disrupt Russian supply lines, command centers, and military installations, potentially reducing their operational effectiveness in the conflict.

Upholding International Order

NATO officials argue that Ukraine’s actions are in line with international law, given that they are responding to an unprovoked invasion. By backing Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons, NATO emphasizes the principle that sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves against external aggression. This stance also serves as a message to other potential aggressors about the international community’s commitment to upholding the rules-based international order.