Until now, the US allowed Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles only on occupied Ukrainian territory. The policy change comes in response to the deployment of North Korean troops on the Russian side of the border in Kursk, where Ukraine holds more than 1,000 km² of territory. These developments suggest that the conflict is becoming global, increasing the importance of US military support.
Biden is also seeking to strengthen Ukraine’s military posture before he leaves office and ensure that it has a stronger position in any future peace talks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi has not yet officially confirmed this change, but in a recent speech he indicated that the results will be seen in actions, not words.
ATACMS missiles, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, have a range of up to 300 km (186 miles) and will allow Ukraine to engage Russian targets deep inside its territory. Likely targets will be military bases, ammunition depots and other key infrastructure, particularly in the Kursk region, where a Russian counter-offensive involving North Korean troops is expected.
While these missiles are unlikely to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor, they may provide a tactical advantage at a time when Russia is making advances in eastern Ukraine and the morale of Ukrainian forces is strained.
The symbolic importance of this move could increase the cost of the war for Russia, but at the same time boost morale on the Ukrainian side. According to former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas, the ATACMS deployment could also have a psychological impact, for example if the missiles hit the Kerch Bridge, a key connecting route between Russia and Crimea.
One of the main reasons the US has so far hesitated to authorize these attacks has been the fear of escalating the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that the use of Western weapons against targets on Russian soil would be seen by Moscow as NATO’s “direct participation” in the war.
Although other “red lines” have already been crossed, such as the supply of modern tanks and fighter jets, without direct retaliation from Russia, this step carries significant risks. Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to NATO, criticized earlier restrictions as unwarranted and driven by fear of Russian provocation.
The decision comes shortly before Donald Trump’s return to the White House, raising uncertainty about future US policy towards Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to end the war in Ukraine quickly, but has not specified how he intends to do so. Some of his allies, including Vice President JD Vance, oppose further deliveries of military aid to Ukraine.
On the other hand, Trump’s team also includes supporters of greater support for Ukraine, such as incoming national security adviser Michael Waltz, who argues that accelerated arms shipments could force Russia to negotiate.
The move could have a wider impact on European allies. Allowing US ATACMS missiles to be used on Russian soil could prompt Britain and France to allow Ukraine to use their long-range Storm Shadow missiles as well. These have similar capabilities and could further increase pressure on the Russian military.
Allowing Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles against Russian targets is a strategic and symbolic move that raises the stakes in the war. Nevertheless, the question remains whether this step will bring about the desired result or will only deepen the risk of escalation. Although Biden’s decision seems to strengthen the position of Ukraine, the future policy of the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump remains uncertain and may completely reverse this development.
How could the use of long-range missiles by Ukraine escalate tensions or change the dynamics of the conflict with Russia?
1. What are the implications of allowing Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles against Russian targets?
2. How do you assess the potential risks and benefits of this decision for both Ukraine and Russia?
3. What role does the US play in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and what are the potential outcomes of their support?
4. How does the position of European allies affect the decision-making process regarding military aid to Ukraine?
5. What are the potential consequences of different approaches to US policy towards Ukraine under President Biden and President Trump?
