Ukraine to pitch Russian targets to DC as Harris-Biden administration resists deepening strike boundaries

Top Ukrainian officials are preparing to show their US counterparts a list of potential targets inside Russia that can be hit by American-provided long-range missiles – but are currently inaccessible under the White House’s policy barring Kyiv from using such weapons as they choose.

Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and senior presidential adviser Andriy Yermak plan to present the list during discussions in DC this week, Politico reported Tuesday, citing “three people familiar with Ukraine’s efforts.”

Currently, Ukraine may only fire US weapons where “Russian forces are coming across the border” and may not use so-called ATACMS — with their 186-mile range — on targets in Kremlin territory, according to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

Institute for the Study of War (ISW) analyst George Barros told The Post Tuesday that the US-ordered red line creates an unfair advantage for Moscow, which does not have to worry about shifting assets away from the front line.

“Probably the single largest thing that the United States could do right now to actually change the war and improve Ukraine’s odds of successfully waging it would be to change the rules of engagement and just simply allow the Ukrainians to use the weapons that are already in their hands in Ukraine to their full extent,” he said.

Ukraine has not publicly confirmed the list’s existence nor disclosed the nature and number of the proposed targets.

The Ukrainian embassy in Washington declined to say Tuesday whether Umerov and Yermak would be traveling to the US capital, citing security concerns.

ISW has identified roughly 250 known Russian military and paramilitary assets within striking range of ATACMS missiles — just 20 of which could be reached by weapons that President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ administration have approved Kyiv to use on Russian territory.

By refusing to remove the restrictions, Harris and Biden are missing the point on how such weapons could tactically disrupt Russian operations, Barros said, explaining that allowing ATACMS on Russian soil wouldn’t just enable Ukraine to take out more Kremlin troops and military bases — but also hit key logistics hubs and other support sites whose destruction could make a real impact on Russia’s war efforts.

“[The would-be targets] are permanent brigade and regimental and division headquarters, they are communications and logistics nodes, fuel depots, ammunition depots” Barros told The Post.

Also in range are “vehicle repair and logistics centers” and other “large, high value assets where the Russians send destroyed and damaged vehicles to be reconstituted, refurbished, to then be able to go back out into the field” that would serve as key targets, the expert went on.

“You cannot relocate those. You can maybe relocate planes on a runway, but you cannot relocate your shops that physically fix tanks, armored personnel carriers and stuff like that,” Barros said.

But the White House has clamored to tamp down criticisms of its rules, suggesting that scrapping the rules may not have the desired affect..

“The Ukrainian military has a limited supply of the missiles and those they do have may not be able to reach critical Russian targets, which have already been moved out of their range,” Politico reported Friday, citing an unnamed “administration official.”

But Barros said it’s just another example of Biden and Harris trying to find an excuse to explain away critiques of policy.

“We know this administration, when it comes to pushing the envelope on what [they’re] comfortable doing, constantly looks for ways to try to justify the efficiencies of current policy as opposed to doing the militarily necessary thing – and this is another instance of that,” he said.

Barros also rejected the Harris-Biden claim “there’s no utility in giving Ukraine the permission to use ATACMS missiles on Russian territory because the Russians redeployed some airplanes from air bases, and now they’re out of range and we can’t hit them anymore.”

Just 17 of the 250 objects ISW identified as potential targets are airfields.

Over the weekend, ISW assessed in an X post responding to the official’s argument in Politico that “it is unlikely that the Russian military has redeployed assets away from all the other 233 objects to the same degree as it has reportedly done with aviation assets.”

“You either have to ignore the majority of the other targets that exist there that can indeed be hit,” Barros said, “or it’s just a gross oversight.”