Ukraine has recently made headlines for firing U.S.-made long-range missiles deep inside Russian territory. This unprecedented move followed President Biden's decision to lift restrictions on the use of these high-tech weapons, sparking fresh tensions between Moscow and Washington.
Just days after receiving this authority, Ukrainian forces targeted the Bryansk region, according to the Russian defense ministry, which claimed Ukraine launched six Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) missiles overnight. This marks the first time these missiles have been used on Russian soil, making it a significant development. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not directly confirm the strikes, but insisted, “We now have ATACMS, Ukrainian long-range capabilities, and we will use them.”
Russian officials have reacted strongly to this escalation. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, attending the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, warned of the west's intentions to escalate the conflict, asserting, “Without the Americans, it is impossible to use these hi-tech missiles, as Putin has repeatedly said.” He emphasized Russia's intention to respond to this aggression “accordingly.”
The missiles reportedly targeted military assets, including what Ukraine described as a military arsenal belonging to the 1046th logistics center outside the city of Karachev. Local Russian media reported explosions and flashes near Karachev, corroborated by videos circulating on social media showing the aftermath of the strikes.
This military move coincides with significant developments on the Russian side as well. President Putin has signed off on a revised nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon usage. This new doctrine states any conventional attack supported by nuclear powers could be interpreted as justification for nuclear retaliation. The timing of this doctrine change is notable, as it seems to be directly linked to Biden's lifting of missile restrictions on Ukraine.
Under the new doctrine, any attack by non-nuclear states on Russia, involving the support of nuclear-armed nations, will be treated as a joint attack, raising the stakes significantly. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov articulated this sentiment, indicating, “The use of Western non-nuclear missiles by Kyiv against Russia, under the new doctrine, could provoke a nuclear response.”
Significantly, as both nations approach the 1,000th day of the full-scale invasion, Putin has reiterated Moscow's resolve, declaring it would defeat Ukraine. Analysts agree the Kremlin’s response will likely include intensified strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, likely targeting civilian locations to exert pressure as winter approaches.
Despite Moscow's aggressive posturing, many analysts believe Russia's options are limited and nuclear escalation is less likely. Political analyst Anton Barbashin pointed out, “Strikes with long-range ATACMS missiles on the territory of Russia... are more likely to fall... and cease to be red lines.” This indicates a shift in the dynamics of the conflict, with long-range capabilities from the West becoming integrated within Ukraine’s military strategy.
The U.S. has been deliberate about its involvement, continuously balancing the provision of military support to Ukraine against the need to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. Initially opposing the idea, Biden authorized the use of ATACMS to help Ukraine strike strategically significant targets within Russia to leveled the playing field against Moscow’s advancements.
These long-range missiles have enhanced destructive capabilities, nearly doubling the range of most weaponry previously available to Ukraine, with the ability to reach up to 300 kilometers (approximately 190 miles). This move aims not only to target military assets but also to disrupt supply lines and reduce Russia’s operational capabilities.
Interestingly, to date, the U.S. military assistance has included dozens of ATACMS missiles, which have been primarily deployed to strike targets within Russian-occupied areas—but not until now inside Russia itself. Ukraine’s armed forces have long sought this capability to counterbalance the military advantages held by Russia.
Despite the optics of this military escalation, U.S. officials continue to express caution about the actual impact. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin emphasized during briefings, “I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive,” underlining concerns about limitations on the military effectiveness of ATACMS and the broader goals Ukraine aims to achieve.
While there’s excitement and anticipation surrounding Ukraine’s new capabilities, some military analysts have countered by stating the immediate strategic changes may not be as revolutionary as they hope. Jennifer Kavanagh from Defense Priorities noted, “The U.S. decision would not alter the course of the war,” pointing out more extensive stockpiles and personnel readiness would be necessary to create significant cost impositions on Russia.
The amount of ATACMS currently available to Ukraine remains unclear, with U.S. officials tight-lipped about precise figures, which are believed to be limited compared to the virtually unrestricted stockpiles desired by Kyiv. This uncertainty adds to concerns about how effective these longer-range systems can be, particularly if the plan is to swing the momentum of the war decisively.
Other NATO member nations might also shift their support strategies; for example, Britain and France may now be encouraged to provide Ukraine with their own long-range missiles, extending options for Kyiv as it seeks to challenge Russian advances.
Nonetheless, as tensions continue to escalate, each missile launch and military statement adds layers of complexity to the conflict, where the balance of power is increasingly dependent on international support and military strategy.
This tension-infused backdrop will shape the coming days and months as both countries navigate the heightened hostilities against the chilling prospect of nuclear brinkmanship.
