On August 24, 2025, the Pentagon took a decisive step by restricting Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range missiles against targets inside Russia, a move that has sent ripples through diplomatic and military circles on both sides of the Atlantic. According to multiple reports, including detailed coverage by The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian, this decision is part of a broader Trump administration initiative to nudge Russian President Vladimir Putin toward peace talks, even as the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year.
The new policy, which has been in effect since late spring, centers on the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS. These missiles, capable of striking targets nearly 190 miles (305 kilometers) away, had previously been authorized for use inside Russia by the Biden administration in November 2024. That policy shift came after North Korean troops entered the conflict on Russia’s side, dramatically altering the war’s dynamics. However, under President Donald Trump, the Pentagon has now imposed a high-level approval process that effectively blocks Kyiv from using these weapons for cross-border strikes.
This approval mechanism, developed by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for policy, requires Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s explicit authorization for every proposed use of U.S. long-range systems, including ATACMS. The policy doesn’t just stop at American-made missiles; it also applies to European-supplied weapons that rely on U.S. intelligence or components, such as Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile. As one U.S. official told The Guardian, “The review mechanism is in place to ensure that escalation is avoided and that every use of these powerful systems is carefully weighed.”
In at least one known instance, Ukraine requested permission to use the ATACMS against a target inside Russia but was denied, according to U.S. officials who spoke to The Wall Street Journal. This veto has significantly limited Ukraine’s military options at a time when its leaders argue that the ability to strike deep into Russian territory is essential for turning the tide of the war.
President Trump’s stance on the issue has been anything but ambiguous. Even before taking office, he criticized the Biden administration’s decision to permit Ukrainian strikes inside Russia. In an interview with Time magazine, Trump declared, “I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that? We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done.”
Yet, Trump’s public frustration over the protracted conflict and the lack of a peace deal has been palpable. Just this week, he posted on his social media platform, Truth, “It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invader’s country. It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning.” Despite these remarks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized to The Wall Street Journal that “there has been no change in military posture in Russia-Ukraine at this time.”
The Pentagon’s restrictions have essentially reversed the late-term policy of former President Joe Biden, who, after supplying Ukraine with hundreds of ATACMS in early 2023, lifted restrictions on their use inside Russia in the fall of 2024. That decision came as a direct response to the growing involvement of North Korean forces on the Russian side. The final Biden-authorized ATACMS shipment arrived in spring 2025, leaving Ukraine with a dwindling stockpile.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s approach to military aid has grown increasingly cautious. In July 2025, Trump pledged to provide Kyiv with new weapons systems, but only if European nations agreed to foot the bill. “We are not looking to supply longer-range weapons to hit Moscow,” Trump told reporters at the time, signaling a clear reluctance to escalate the conflict further.
True to that word, last week the administration approved an $850 million weapons package for Ukraine, funded mostly by European allies. This package includes 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles, boasting ranges between 240 and 450 kilometers. However, even these new munitions will require Pentagon approval before Ukraine can deploy them—a sign of the administration’s tight grip on escalation risks. Delivery of the ERAMs is expected within six weeks, according to U.S. officials.
Ukraine, for its part, has not been idle. As U.S. and European restrictions tighten, Kyiv has ramped up its own long-range strike capabilities, particularly through the use of domestically produced drones. Earlier this month, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Ukraine is developing a new cruise missile, dubbed the “Flamingo,” which could be produced in significant numbers by late 2025 or early 2026. These efforts reflect Ukraine’s determination to maintain offensive options, even as Western support becomes more conditional.
The review process itself, as described by several U.S. and British officials, is designed to prevent unintended escalation while maintaining a channel for military assistance. Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, for example, relies on U.S. targeting data and thus falls under the same approval regime. “The system is in place not just for American weapons, but for any allied system that depends on U.S. intelligence or components,” a British official explained to The Guardian.
Despite the new constraints, U.S. officials insist that the restrictions do not represent a formal policy change—at least not yet. A senior White House official told The Wall Street Journal that while Trump could reconsider the ban on offensive operations against Russia, no such shift has been made. For now, the Pentagon’s review mechanism remains the gatekeeper for any Ukrainian strikes that might cross the border.
The debate over how much military autonomy to grant Ukraine reflects broader strategic anxieties in Washington and among its allies. On one hand, there’s a fear that allowing Ukrainian forces to strike deep into Russian territory could provoke a dangerous escalation, drawing NATO and Russia ever closer to direct confrontation. On the other hand, Ukrainian leaders argue that without the ability to attack the invader’s rear, their chances of victory are slim.
As the war grinds on, the U.S. is also grappling with its own logistical challenges. American stockpiles of advanced munitions have been depleted by the steady flow of aid to Ukraine, prompting a more cautious approach to further arms transfers. The Pentagon’s review mechanism is, in part, a reflection of these new realities.
For now, Ukraine’s hopes for a decisive battlefield breakthrough appear to rest as much on political calculations in Washington as on the ingenuity of its own weapons engineers. The coming months will reveal whether the combination of new Western-supplied missiles—albeit tightly controlled—and homegrown innovations like the Flamingo cruise missile can shift the balance in a conflict that shows no sign of abating.