For months, the Pentagon has quietly but firmly blocked Ukraine from using U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory, even as the war grinds on and international attention remains fixed on the region. According to a series of reports from the Wall Street Journal, RBC-Ukraine, and other outlets, a high-level, undisclosed approval process within the U.S. Department of Defense has been in place since late spring 2025, effectively limiting Kyiv’s ability to employ some of its most powerful Western-supplied weaponry against Russian targets.
At the center of this policy is the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS—a long-range missile system provided by the United States to Ukraine as part of ongoing military support. These missiles, capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, have been seen by many in Ukraine as a potential game-changer in their fight against Moscow’s invasion. Yet, as U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon has repeatedly denied Ukrainian requests to use these weapons against targets within Russia’s borders, citing a classified approval mechanism that requires sign-off from the very top of the defense establishment.
“The Pentagon has blocked Ukraine from using long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia for several months,” the Wall Street Journal reported, citing multiple U.S. officials. This restriction has been in place since late spring, with at least one confirmed instance where Ukraine’s request to use ATACMS on Russian soil was denied. The approval process, sources say, is so stringent that only Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth can authorize such strikes—a power he has yet to exercise in Ukraine’s favor.
The origins of this policy trace back to Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, who, according to RBC-Ukraine, has prioritized U.S. strategic interests in the Pacific—specifically the growing confrontation with China—over deeper military commitments in Europe. Colby’s approach, which emphasizes conserving U.S. military resources for a potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific, is believed to have influenced not only the restrictions on missile use but also a brief suspension of weapons supplies to Ukraine earlier in July. This internal calculus, while not publicly discussed by the Pentagon, has had profound implications for Ukraine’s battlefield options.
The restrictions aren’t limited to the American ATACMS missiles. The British-French Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which rely on U.S.-provided targeting data, are also subject to the same high-level review. In effect, Ukraine’s ability to use its most advanced Western munitions against Russian targets is tightly controlled from Washington, with every proposed strike requiring personal approval from Secretary Hegseth.
The context for these decisions is as complex as the war itself. In November 2024, Ukraine reportedly carried out its first strike with U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles on Russian territory, targeting a military facility near the city of Karachev in Russia’s Bryansk region. The specific target was the 67th arsenal of the Russian Ministry of Defense’s Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU), according to RBC-Ukraine. That attack, which marked a significant escalation in Ukraine’s military capabilities, was seen by some Western analysts as a turning point—one that could provoke a harsh response from Moscow.
Yet, as the war dragged into 2025, the Biden administration’s initial authorization for Ukraine to use ATACMS was reportedly limited to strikes within Russia’s Kursk region, a restriction that further constrained Kyiv’s operational freedom. By the end of 2024, Western media began reporting that Ukraine’s stock of ATACMS missiles was running low, raising questions about how much longer Kyiv could maintain even its limited campaign of long-range strikes. U.S. and NATO officials, quoted by the New York Times, described Ukraine’s use of the missiles as “effective” but urged greater prudence in target selection and quantity, hinting at concerns over both escalation and dwindling supplies.
The political backdrop in Washington has only added to the uncertainty. As President Donald Trump began warming diplomatic ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Pentagon’s restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles took on new significance. According to The Times of Israel, the approval mechanism for ATACMS strikes was implemented just as Trump’s administration sought to recalibrate U.S.-Russia relations. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking to the Wall Street Journal on August 24, 2025, emphasized, “President Trump has been very clear that the war in Ukraine needs to end. There has been no change in military posture in Russia-Ukraine at this time.” She added, “Secretary Hegseth is working in lockstep with President Trump.”
The message from the White House is clear: while the U.S. continues to support Ukraine, it is doing so within carefully defined limits, aiming to avoid direct escalation with Russia. The high-level approval process, never publicly announced, serves as a quiet but powerful check on how far Ukraine can go with its Western-supplied arsenal. For Kyiv, this means that even as it receives advanced weapons, its freedom to use them is not absolute.
On the ground, the impact has been tangible. Ukrainian officials, who once hoped that the delivery of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles would allow them to disrupt Russian logistics and command centers far behind the front lines, now find themselves hamstrung by Washington’s cautious approach. According to U.S. officials cited by the Wall Street Journal, at least one recent Ukrainian request to use ATACMS against a Russian target was rejected outright, underscoring the strictness of the current policy.
For Ukrainian military planners, this has forced a shift toward more “judicious” use of their dwindling missile stockpiles. As U.S. and NATO officials have advised, Kyiv must now weigh each potential strike carefully, balancing the immediate tactical benefits against the risk of exhausting their limited supply—and the ever-present possibility that further escalation could provoke a broader conflict.
Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary Colby’s influence continues to loom large. His view that U.S. resources must be conserved for a possible confrontation with China has shaped not only the Pentagon’s approach to Ukraine but also broader debates within Washington about America’s global military commitments. For some in Congress and the defense establishment, this is a prudent strategy; for others, it is a dangerous gamble that leaves Ukraine vulnerable at a critical moment.
As the war in Ukraine enters another uncertain phase, the question of how—and whether—to expand Kyiv’s ability to strike inside Russia remains unresolved. For now, the Pentagon’s secretive approval process stands as a stark reminder of the limits of Western support, even as the stakes in Eastern Europe continue to climb. With every denied request and every missile held in reserve, the delicate balance between deterrence, escalation, and diplomacy is tested anew.
For Ukraine, the message is bittersweet: the tools for a more aggressive defense are within reach, but the permission to use them lies half a world away, behind closed doors in Washington.
