MANILA, Philippines — In a significant shift in policy following extensive discussions, the United States has granted Ukraine the authority to utilize long-range American weaponry to target locations within Russia. President Joe Biden has approved the deployment of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which boasts a range of 180 miles. This decision comes after Ukraine’s prolonged appeals for such capabilities since the Biden administration first allowed the use of American-supplied weapons against Russian targets in May.
The U.S. had previously hesitated to extend this permission, concerned that it could escalate the conflict without providing substantial battlefield advantages. However, recent developments, notably North Korea’s commitment of over 10,000 troops to support Russian forces near Kursk, have prompted the Biden administration to reassess its stance. Ukrainian forces gained control of significant territory in this area earlier in the fall, which may have further influenced Washington’s decision.
Although Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin noted that North Korean troops have not yet engaged in combat, he indicated that their involvement is expected soon. As Russia faces staggering casualties—reportedly as high as 1,250 per day—this infusion of North Korean soldiers could bolster Russian defenses without necessitating a new draft. However, Austin expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of these North Korean units, given their lack of experience and language barriers with Russian forces who have not cooperated closely for decades.
As of now, Ukraine has yet to employ the ATACMS to strike deep into Russian territory. The current policy revision allows this capability specifically for operations within the Kursk region, though Ukraine has expressed a desire for broader permission to target sites within the missile range. The U.S. may extend this authorization if Russia escalates its military actions.
The initial allowance for Ukraine to engage with American weaponry in Russian territory was introduced in response to Russia’s offensive maneuvers in Kharkiv, a strategic city near the border. The U.S. government indicated that the limitations previously imposed had created a safe zone for Russian military assets, effectively allowing them to operate with impunity just outside Ukrainian reach. Early on, clarity regarding these permissions was inconsistent, with the Pentagon initially restricting attacks to the Kharkiv area before the White House expanded the directive.
While a senior U.S. defense official expressed doubts about the longevity of restrictions on long-range strikes, the U.S. maintained its cautious approach for several months. During this time, the administration highlighted three key points to justify its policy: the depletion of American missile stocks, the development of Ukraine’s own long-range capabilities (predominantly through drones), and the idea that these drones could achieve similar strategic outcomes.
Ukrainian forces have successfully utilized drones to target Russian oil refineries and munitions depots with notable effectiveness. Following the policy amendment in May, Russia responded by relocating many of its aircraft beyond the maximum range of the ATACMS, anticipating a possible U.S. concession. This tactical shift means that Ukraine faces continued aerial bombardments from glide bombs—imprecise munitions modified for greater accuracy—that have plagued its urban centers for over a year.
Despite the U.S. granting Ukraine this new capability, challenges remain. The limited supply of ATACMS raises questions about the scope of the policy change, particularly regarding long-range systems supplied by allied nations such as Britain and France. Both countries have advocated for Ukraine’s right to employ these weapons wherever needed; however, since they depend on American components and targeting data, the U.S. ultimately retains influence over their deployment.
As the situation evolves, the dynamics on the battlefield are expected to shift with the introduction of this new capability, but the effectiveness and implications of these changes continue to unfold.
