How far can ATACMS missiles reach into Russia? REUTERS/Graphics 

U.S. Authorizes Long-Range Ukrainian Strikes: Impact and Implications

The recent decision by the United States to authorize Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes within Russian territory has sparked significant debate among analysts and policymakers. This move, which lifts some longstanding restrictions on the use of U.S.-supplied weapons, comes at a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. However, questions remain regarding its timing, potential impact, and the broader geopolitical ramifications.

Policy Change and Timing

Two months before the end of his presidency, U.S. President Joe Biden approved a major policy shift, removing restrictions on Kyiv’s ability to use U.S.-provided weapons for strikes deep into Russian territory. This decision follows months of lobbying by Ukraine, which argued that the inability to target Russian military infrastructure, particularly airbases hosting bombers involved in strikes on Ukraine, was a critical disadvantage.

Military analysts and officials have noted that while this change may bolster Ukraine’s strategic operations, particularly in the contested Kursk region, its overall impact on the war may be limited. Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, remarked, “The decision comes late and may be insufficient to substantially alter the course of the conflict.”

Immediate Battlefield Implications

The authorization enables Ukraine to potentially utilize long-range ATACMS missiles, which have a range of up to 190 miles (306 kilometers). According to Reuters, the first strikes could occur in the coming days. These strikes are expected to target high-value Russian military assets, including those in and beyond the Kursk region, which Ukraine has partially occupied since its first cross-border operation in August.

Despite this potential, military officials remain cautious about the missiles’ effectiveness in altering the broader battlefield dynamics. Russia has already repositioned many of its air assets beyond the range of Western-supplied weaponry, and analysts caution that the limited supply of missiles may constrain Ukraine’s capacity to launch decisive strikes.

Kursk: A Key Strategic Focus

Ukraine’s presence in the Kursk region provides a tactical foothold and could serve as leverage in future negotiations. Ukrainian officials report that Russia has amassed 50,000 troops and deployed an additional 11,000 North Korean personnel to the area, heightening pressure on Ukrainian forces.

Kofman noted that ATACMS could help Ukraine defend its position by targeting valuable Russian and North Korean assets. However, Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, emphasized that sustaining control in Kursk would depend heavily on the availability of ammunition and reinforcements.

Broader Geopolitical Context

The U.S. decision to authorize long-range strikes follows a pattern of delayed approvals for military aid, including tanks and aircraft, throughout the conflict. Critics argue these delays have allowed Russia to reinforce its defenses and recover from earlier setbacks.

The policy shift has also drawn international scrutiny. The Kremlin labeled the move as a direct escalation, asserting that the United States is now directly involved in the conflict. Meanwhile, allied nations such as France and Britain have not clarified whether they will follow suit by allowing Ukraine to use their long-range missiles, such as Storm Shadow and SCALP systems.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis expressed caution, noting the limited supply of missiles and their questionable capacity to alter the strategic situation.

Domestic and Political Reactions

In the United States, the decision has faced criticism from key figures within the Republican Party. Richard Grenell, a foreign policy advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, criticized the timing and potential risks of escalation. Trump, who is set to return to office in January, has pledged to end the conflict swiftly, though he has not provided specific details on how this would be achieved.

In Ukraine, public sentiment remains mixed. While some view the authorization as a positive development, many believe it comes too late to make a significant difference. “This should have been used either as a preventative measure or as a sharp reaction in early 2022,” said Olga Korovyachuk, a resident of Kyiv.