In a surprising shift in U.S. policy, President Joe Biden has authorized the use of long-range missiles—specifically the ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System)—by Ukraine to strike deep inside Russian territory. This major policy reversal marks a significant change in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, as Washington had previously resisted allowing such strikes for fear that they would escalate the war. Now, just two months before Biden hands over the reins of power to Donald Trump, who has expressed conflicting views on U.S. support for Ukraine, this decision has added another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.
For over a year, Ukraine has been using the ATACMS missiles to target Russian positions within occupied Ukrainian territory. However, up until now, Washington had drawn a line in the sand, refusing to let Ukraine use these weapons inside Russia. This has been a point of frustration for Ukrainian officials, who have argued that the restriction essentially handicaps their military efforts, like fighting with "one hand tied behind their back."
The timing of this policy change is crucial. Ukraine’s argument for expanding the missile’s reach into Russian territory has gained fresh momentum due to recent developments, including the arrival of North Korean troops in support of Russia in the Kursk region, an area Ukraine has held since August. Furthermore, there is growing concern within Ukraine about what will happen when President Biden’s term ends and Donald Trump potentially takes office. The uncertainty surrounding the future of U.S. support for Ukraine has added urgency to Biden’s decision, as he seeks to strengthen Ukraine’s military position in the limited time he has left in office.
ATACMS: A Game-Changer for Ukraine
The ATACMS missiles, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, are a sophisticated form of artillery designed for long-range strikes. These ballistic missiles can be launched from a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), which is already a part of Ukraine’s military arsenal. The ATACMS are capable of hitting critical targets far behind enemy lines, including ammunition depots, military headquarters, and troop concentrations. With a range of up to 300 kilometers (about 186 miles), the ATACMS is a formidable weapon that can deliver devastating blows to key Russian infrastructure and military positions deep within Russian-controlled regions.
The missile's warhead, which weighs 227 kilograms, can either be a traditional explosive or cluster munitions, which break apart upon detonation, scattering hundreds of smaller bomblets over a wide area. This makes the ATACMS a powerful tool for disrupting Russian supply chains, military coordination, and morale.
What’s the Impact on the Battlefield?
Now that Ukraine has the green light to target Russian soil with the ATACMS, the Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces have already reclaimed significant territory, is expected to be one of the primary areas of focus. Ukrainian and U.S. officials anticipate that Russian and North Korean troops will launch a counteroffensive in an attempt to retake the area. Ukraine could use the ATACMS to strike key military positions, supply depots, and other strategic targets in a bid to defend its hard-won territory.
Although the introduction of these missiles is unlikely to change the course of the war overnight, it could have a significant psychological impact. Russian forces, already facing logistical challenges in the conflict, may find it harder to operate efficiently as their supply lines stretch further and their air support takes longer to reach the front lines. This could shift the balance of power, even if the overall military advantage remains with Russia in the short term.
"It's not going to be a game-changer, but it's an overdue decision," said a Western diplomat in Kyiv. "It raises the stakes and sends a message that the U.S. is committed to supporting Ukraine."
The reality, however, is that there are concerns about how many ATACMS missiles the U.S. can actually provide to Ukraine. According to former officials, the Pentagon has warned that stocks are limited, and the U.S. may not be able to supply an endless stream of these weapons to Kyiv. Even if more missiles are provided, their impact might be diluted if they aren’t used strategically. The military could use them to hit symbolic targets, such as the Kerch Bridge, which links Crimea to Russia, further raising the stakes in the conflict.
The Risk of Escalation
The decision to allow Ukraine to strike inside Russian territory raises questions about the potential for further escalation in the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that if NATO or its allies start directly targeting Russian soil with advanced weaponry, it would be seen as direct participation in the conflict. Putin has indicated that this would cross a "red line," changing the nature of the war entirely.
However, the U.S. has already crossed some of these lines before. The provision of modern tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine, once considered provocative, has not led to an outright conflict between NATO and Russia. Despite the potential risks, some experts believe that restricting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself with advanced weapons has been a mistake. Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, stated that limiting Ukraine’s use of American weapons was "completely arbitrary" and based on a misplaced fear of provoking Russia.
Volker and others argue that the decision to restrict the use of ATACMS was an attempt to limit Ukraine’s self-defense capabilities. With this new policy change, some hope that it will send a strong message to Russia, demonstrating that the U.S. and its allies are not backing down in their support for Ukraine.
The Shadow of Donald Trump
This policy shift comes at a particularly sensitive time. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House on the horizon, many in Ukraine are anxiously watching how he will approach the conflict. Trump has previously stated that he intends to bring the war in Ukraine to an end quickly, though he has not outlined a specific plan for doing so. Many of his supporters, including figures like his son Donald Trump Jr., have criticized the ongoing military support for Ukraine, claiming that it risks escalating the conflict into World War III.
Some of Trump’s closest allies, like Vice President-elect JD Vance, have argued that the U.S. should stop providing military aid to Ukraine, while others, such as National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, have suggested that the U.S. could increase weapons deliveries to force Russia to negotiate. The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s foreign policy positions has created a sense of unease in Kyiv.
Ukrainian lawmakers, like Oleksiy Goncharenko, are concerned that a shift in U.S. leadership could result in the suspension of critical military aid, including the ATACMS. "We are worried," Goncharenko said. "We hope that Trump will not reverse this decision."
The Bottom Line
As Ukraine now has access to long-range missiles to strike Russian targets, the strategic landscape of the war is set to shift. While the move may not be a game-changer on its own, it could provide Ukraine with the military leverage it needs as the conflict continues. However, the larger question remains: Will these new capabilities be enough to push Russia to the negotiating table or will they merely escalate the violence further? Only time will tell, and as U.S. support for Ukraine hangs in the balance, the future of the war remains uncertain.
Login