President Joe Biden has recently made waves on the international stage by giving Ukraine the green light to strike deep inside Russian territory with U.S.-made long-range missiles. This decision marks a significant shift from previous U.S. policy and follows extensive lobbying from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has been advocating for such capabilities to bolster Ukraine's military response against the steady Russian advances since the onset of the invasion back in 2022. The announcement is timely, coming just weeks before Donald Trump is set to take office as President-elect, raising questions about the future of U.S. involvement and support for Ukraine.
This pivotal decision was confirmed by several media outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, citing anonymous U.S. officials familiar with the matter. They reported the Biden administration's lift of restrictions on Ukraine’s usage of powerful Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to target military installations deep within Russia, which Ukrainian forces plan to use within days.
"Today, many people are saying we’ve received permission for appropriate actions. But [militaries] do not strike with words. Such things are not announced. Missiles will speak for themselves," Zelensky stated during his evening address, implying the imminent application of this approval.
While the U.S. administration had previously been cautious about allowing Ukraine to strike inside Russia—fearing it might provoke retaliation—a recent surge of North Korean troops joining Russia's war efforts appears to have contributed to this policy flip. It is reported by sources close to the Biden administration, possibly indicating mounting pressure for decisive action against the growing threat from North Korea.
Reactions from Moscow have been swift and stern. Top Russian lawmaker Vladimir Dzhabarov characterized Biden's decision as taking the world closer to World War III, emphasizing the severe consequences of such escalation. Another official warned of immediate repercussions for Ukraine, echoing concerns about Ukrainian sovereignty being compromised due to increased military intervention.
The decision to allow long-range strikes by Ukraine is also seen as part of Biden’s broader strategy to support Ukraine before he hands over power to Trump, who has expressed intentions to re-evaluate U.S. aid to Ukraine, potentially reducing military support. Following Trump’s anticipated inauguration, speculation looms over whether Biden’s policy changes could be reverted.
Biden’s authorization allows Ukraine to utilize long-range American missiles against military targets within Russia, significantly altering the battlefield dynamics. Historically, U.S. support has primarily focused on defensive measures, limiting the range of strikes Ukraine could undertake. This latest authorization is perceived as one of the most consequential policy shifts concerning Ukraine’s military strategy.
Previously, U.S. officials had suggested limiting the deployment of ATACMS to just beyond Ukraine’s borders to prevent direct engagement with Russian military assets. This approach seems to have changed radically, as reports indicate preparations for the first long-range missile attacks are already underway.
The type of weaponry being integrated includes the ATACMS, well-known for their precision and range, enabling targeted strikes against strategic military installations, arms depots, and command sites within Russia. Sources indicate aims might initially focus on areas such as Russia’s Kursk region, where significant military operations are based. Such strikes could shift the war’s dynamic by impacting Russian logistics and command efficacy.
This move aligns with the contributions of other NATO allies, including the United Kingdom, which has also extended military support to Ukraine with the provision of Storm Shadow missiles, known for their long-range strike capabilities. Germany, conversely, has opted against supplying its long-range missiles, expressing concerns about direct engagement with Russian forces.
While this decision showcases the U.S.'s long-term commitment to stand by Ukraine during these turbulent times, it also raises alarms over the risk of retaliation from Russia. There is widespread apprehension within military and political circles about how far Moscow might go to protect its territory and respond to perceived U.S. aggression.
U.S. military analysts suggest this development could provoke Russia’s tactical responses, potentially leading to broader regional conflict. Observers fear the already fraying lines of engagement between NATO and Moscow could fray even more, with some speculating on Moscow’s possible miscalculations if they perceive the strikes as thresholds crossed.
General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, argued, “allowing Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia sends a message to Moscow: the United States is not prepared to fold.” His comments reflect the sentiment among certain military strategists who view this decision as necessary to reinforce Ukraine’s defensive capabilities and deter Russian advances.
Zelensky’s administration is poised to capitalize on this newfound military freedom, with sources indicating high morale among Ukrainian troops ready to execute planned strikes against Russian military infrastructure. The government believes these moves could provide necessary leverage for future peace negotiations—though realistic outcomes from the proposed negotiations remain obscured as both sides maintain starkly contrasting aims and expectations from the war.
Given the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of warfare, stakeholders on both sides are bracing for reactions to this tumultuous shift. The path forward is shrouded in uncertainty, underscoring the complex interplay of diplomatic relations and military strategies at play on the world stage.
With President Biden’s mantle of leadership nearing its end, the subsequent policies enacted by Trump’s administration could markedly alter U.S. relations with Ukraine and fundamentally shift the course of the war. Should Trump return to the White House with the intention of curtailing aid to Ukraine, the ramifications could jeopardize the hard-fought gains made against Russian advancement.
