Nick Schifrin:
In the smoky aftermath of a Russian missile, firefighters pick through the pieces of Russia's latest battlefield of choice, books, books turned to ash in what was one of Ukraine's largest printing houses.
Russia has been bombarding Kharkiv and trying to occupy towns further north, including Vovchansk, to try and bring Kharkiv city into artillery range and draw Ukrainian forces away from fierce fighting in the Donbass. In Vovchansk, there's no cover from Russian drones.
The city center has been ripped apart by Russian weapons parked right over the border inside Russia. Newly arrived Western ammunition has helped Ukrainian troops hold the line. But they can't use U.S. weapons to hit the Russian weapons in Russia that are hitting them.
This week, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Reuters wants that restriction lifted.
Nick Schifrin:
Senior U.S. officials tell me, while the idea of using NATO assets to shoot down Russian missiles over Ukraine is deemed too risky, there is a debate about whether to allow Ukraine to use American weapons to target Russian weapons just over the border inside Russia.
And The New York Times today reported Secretary of State Antony Blinken has now endorsed that idea.
So, should the U.S. lift restrictions on where Ukraine can fire American weapons?
For that, we get two views. William Taylor was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration. And Emma Ashford is a senior fellow at the Stimson Center and writes widely about U.S. foreign policy.
Thanks very much. Welcome, both of you, back to the "NewsHour."
Ambassador Taylor, let me start with you.
Should the U.S. allow Ukraine to use American weapons against Russian targets in Russia, whether on the ground in Russia or in the air above Russia, not only on the border, but deeper inside Russia?
William Taylor, Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine: Nick, I'd say yes.
If the Russians are firing at Ukrainians from a sanctuary, which is really what they have right now, then the Ukrainians ought to be able to shoot back. This is basic self-defense. And some of the Russian fire is coming from close by, close across the border in that sanctuary, but some is coming from airfields.
So there are Russian jets that are taking off from airfields and that are launching these glide bombs that are going into Kharkiv, as you just described. So, yes, I think the Ukrainians ought to be able to shoot back.
Emma Ashford, Stimson Center:
I think that we need to be drawing a distinction here.
I think, when it comes to Kharkiv and the question of a conventional conflict that is being fought effectively across the border, that is one thing. And I think that's something that the United States might want to look at lifting some of those restrictions.
Where I have substantially more concerns, however, is on this long-range strike capability. Ukraine has been using other non-American weapons to engage in a campaign of striking Russian refineries, factories, et cetera.
And I worry, and I think the White House is very worried, that allowing Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to do that would be very escalatory.
Emma Ashford:
I think Russia is deterred from direct attacks on NATO territory, but I do think we're seeing an increasing willingness to escalate kind of under that level of conventional conflict.
And I do just want to note that I think we need to put this question of long-range strikes in the context of the other steps that the U.S. and Western allies have taken, increasing the number of weapons systems that have been sent, increasing the ways in which Ukraine can fight back against Russia, and then talking about things like U.S. advisers in the conflict or Western troops behind the lines.
These are things that sort of move forward in a consistent upward cycle of escalation, and, at some point, it is entirely possible that we could cross some Russian red lines. So we do have to be very cautious, and I credit the White House for being cautious on this.
William Taylor:
It depends on us. It depends on us.
As Emma just said, if we can provide a lot of weapons to the Ukrainians so that they can push, they can stabilize the line right now, and then eventually next year, probably, they can push them back.
If it's clear that the Ukrainians are not going to stop fighting, which it is, and if it's clear the Europeans will continue to support the Ukrainians, which they are so far, and we have just demonstrated that we're going to supply them with $61 billion and more, presumably, after that, if that is clear to President Putin that he cannot win, that's how it ends.
