Follow us on social

google cta
Ukraine

Congress: Let Ukraine hit more targets inside Russia with US weapons

Getting us one step closer to a direct war with Moscow

Reporting | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

U.S. policy towards the war in Ukraine is to escalate rather than work to calm tensions, if activity on Capitol Hill is any indication.

In late May, Politico reported that the Biden administration had quietly given Ukraine the authority to conduct limited strikes in Russia using U.S. weapons. It was a stunning shift in administration policy that underscored the dire battlefield conditions in Kyiv and risked a serious escalation in the war, according to the administration’s own thinking.

In response to the news, lawmakers have introduced two competing amendments to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. One, introduced by Rep. Thomas Kean (R-N.J) “[s]tates that it is the policy of the United States to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to strike legitimate targets inside Russia with U.S.-provided weapons.”

What exactly “legitimate targets” means is not specified in the legislative text. According to last week’s reporting, the White House had only greenlit strikes near the area of Kharkiv, in the country’s northeast.

One of the co-sponsors of the amendment, Rep. Jake Auchinchloss (D-Mass.), recently told Semafor that he wanted the administration to give Ukraine even broader discretion.

“They should authorize all weapons to be used to strike any site within Russia that has military application,” Auchinchloss said. “That means energy infrastructure, troops, staging sites, industrial sites.” Others who praised the decision lamented that the Biden administration had not arrived at that conclusion earlier in the war.

That amendment has 21 other cosponsors — more than all but two of the 1,316 amendments introduced — including 13 Democrats and eight Republicans.

On the other side, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of weapons provided to Ukraine for the purpose of striking targets within Russian territory. As of the time of publication, that amendment has no co-sponsors.

A number of Republican members did criticize the administration’s decision, with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) saying that the policy against striking in Russia had “been at least one reasonable attempt to limit escalation of hostilities.”

Experts say that allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia will do little to alter the current battlefield situation. “This decision does nothing to redress the two main reasons why Ukraine is on a trajectory of defeat: crippling manpower and firepower deficits,” Mark Episkopos, Eurasia research fellow at the Quincy Institute, tells RS. “It has been a persistent battlefield reality that Ukraine lacks the resources to conduct cross-border strikes with the scale and frequency required to impose decisive costs on Moscow.”

In addition, Episkopos warns that it could lead to more serious escalation between the U.S. and Russia.

“Ukraine has been striking targets inside Russian territory using its own arsenal for the better part of this war. Doing this with American-provided weapons —and, potentially, targeting information provided by Western intelligence — further blurs the lines between support and active participation, complicating the White House's insistence that the U.S. is not a party to this conflict,” he says. “This raising of the stakes is accompanied by heightened risks of Russian escalation, whether in or outside Ukraine, for no discernable strategic benefit.”

The long list of proposed NDAA amendments contains other attempts to constrain Biden’s support for the Ukrainian war effort. It includes a renewed effort from Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) to require that the administration provide Congress with a strategy for U.S. involvement in the war before lawmakers approve any further funding, and another try from a bipartisan group of members to prohibit the transfer of cluster munitions. The attempt to ban cluster munitions has already failed in a handful of floor votes, and was recently defeated in the House Armed Services Committee markup of the NDAA by a vote of 48-10.

It is unclear which, if any, of these amendments will receive a vote on the House floor. The Rules committee is expected to meet on June 11 to mark-up the legislation.




Yavoriv, Ukraine – U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine observe a Ukrainian Army live-fire exercise at the Yavoriv Combat Training Center Dec. 7, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Alexander Rector)
Yavoriv, Ukraine – U.S. Army soldiers assigned to the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine observe a Ukrainian Army live-fire exercise at the Yavoriv Combat Training Center Dec. 7, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Alexander Rector)
google cta
Reporting | Washington Politics
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.