Special Poll
President Joe Biden’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range American missiles, known as ATACMS, against targets in Russia follows a recognizable pattern in U.S. military support for Kyiv. Initially, the White House resists such requests, citing concerns about escalation. Ukraine then voices its frustration publicly, and after a period of delay, the approval is granted—often when the effectiveness of the decision is questioned due to the timing.
This pattern has played out before with other critical military aid, such as HIMARS, Abrams tanks, and F-16 fighter jets. Each followed a cycle of refusal, hesitation, and eventual approval, often just as the battlefield situation evolved to limit their potential impact.
Now, with ATACMS, the question arises: will these missiles significantly influence the conflict, especially as they allow Ukraine to target deeper within Russian territory? The answer isn’t straightforward and reflects why the Biden administration hesitated.
One key factor is the limited supply of ATACMS available to Ukraine. Although the missiles can reach targets up to 62 miles inside Russia, their numbers are insufficient to bring about a decisive shift in the war. Analysts have identified numerous potential targets within range, such as Russian airfields, which reportedly moved their attack aircraft further into Russia after learning of Ukraine’s access to ATACMS. However, the limited stock means these strikes will not fundamentally change the dynamics on the battlefield.
Additionally, Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to strike deep into Russia using domestically developed, cost-effective drones. These devices, funded in part by U.S. support, have caused significant disruptions at Russian airports and energy facilities. This raises questions about the added value of ATACMS compared to the effectiveness of Ukraine’s own innovations.
There’s also the inherently provocative nature of allowing U.S.-made precision missiles to strike deep inside Russia. While Russia’s military capabilities may currently be constrained, the Kremlin retains options to retaliate in less conventional ways. Sabotage operations, such as planting explosive devices in civilian targets across Europe, have been linked to Russian intelligence services. The Biden administration likely weighed the potential for such responses against the tactical advantage of these long-range strikes.
The decision also reflects broader strategic considerations. The introduction of North Korean troops into the conflict, stationed in Russia’s Kursk region, was seen as an escalation by Moscow that prompted the U.S. to respond. Western officials view this deployment as a sign that the war is drawing in America’s Indo-Pacific adversaries, increasing its global implications. For Biden, granting ATACMS approval was not simply about military utility but a calculated response to this growing complexity.
The timing of the decision carries significant symbolism. Delays in approval have only heightened the perceived weight of the decision. As Biden nears the end of his term, President-elect Donald Trump will inherit a conflict where the stakes, and the international ramifications, have grown dramatically. Whether this escalation strengthens Ukraine’s position or leads to unintended consequences remains to be seen.