The pace of events in the Ukrainian war is accelerating following reports from several media sources about the United States’ decision to allow Ukraine to use American long-range missiles to strike targets within Russia. This represents a significant development in the Ukrainian war, signaling the West’s willingness to provide their Ukrainian ally with increased military support, particularly as it faces intense Russian attacks, bolstered by the presence of thousands of North Korean troops. On the other hand, this shift in U.S. policy has sparked debate about possible Russian reactions. While it enhances Ukraine’s ability to strike vital Russian targets, it also increases the risk of retaliation from Moscow and may contribute to reshaping global alliances. Perhaps what amplified concerns in this regard was President Putin’s signing of a decree on November 19, 2024, allowing the military to respond with nuclear weapons if the country is attacked with ballistic missiles.
U.S. Escalation
The U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles (ATACMS) with a range of 190 miles to strike targets within Russia marks a significant shift in the dynamics of the war. The timing of this decision carries multiple implications, the most notable of which are:
Anticipating Biden’s Transition Before Trump Takes Office: This decision is inextricably linked to the timing of the power shift in the White House. The current administration of President Joe Biden is racing against time to secure tangible gains for Ukraine before the elected President Donald Trump assumes office in January 2025. Trump has expressed skepticism about the importance of continuing extensive military support for Ukraine, prompting Biden’s administration to accelerate its decisions to bolster Kyiv’s position and embarrass the incoming administration. This approach goes beyond domestic politics and extends to attempts to exploit the current situation to create a fait accompli that may be difficult to change. This dynamic is reflected in criticisms from Donald Trump Jr., who described the decision as an attempt to strengthen the influence of the American military-industrial complex, potentially pushing the U.S. towards a broad external confrontation before the new administration has a chance to act, which could compel Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, to initiate early negotiations to end the conflict as soon as possible.
Biden Enhancing His Legacy Before Leaving Office: Through this decision, Biden aims to leave a clear mark on foreign policy by demonstrating his unequivocal support for Ukraine during his term. Although Biden had previously been more cautious than his European counterparts regarding the risks of escalating confrontation with Russia, this decision signifies a radical shift in his approach; it indicates the current administration’s desire to significantly improve Ukraine’s military capabilities, as reflected in other recent decisions, such as allowing American defense contractors to enter Ukraine for the first time to service Western defense systems and aircraft. Simultaneously, this decision highlights internal conflict within the Biden administration. While some Republicans supported the decision, arguing it came too late—given that long-range missiles, if not decisive in ending the war, could play a crucial role in degrading Russian capabilities and forcing a reassessment of their offensive plans—officials at the Pentagon expressed concern over the depletion of U.S. military supplies and the potential for Putin to escalate the conflict.
Obstructing Any Russian Military Expansion Plans in Ukraine: The battlefield in Ukraine has undergone significant changes since the war began in 2022, despite some successful counterattacks by Ukraine. However, Russia still controls land in eastern Ukraine while sending thousands of new North Korean soldiers to the front. The White House’s recent decision came just hours after Russia launched 210 missiles and drones at Ukraine, one of the largest aerial attacks since the war began. Thus, this decision may represent an attempt to thwart any Russian military expansion plans in Ukraine, particularly in light of President Putin’s intentions to carry out further aggressive attacks, seizing upon opportunities presented by a potential supine U.S. stance under a new Trump administration starting in January. Accordingly, Washington views the introduction of the ATACMS missiles into the conflict equation as a tool enabling Ukraine to target critical logistical centers and major Russian command posts, alleviating pressure on the front lines and reshaping the dynamics of confrontation in Kyiv’s favor.
Preventing Moscow from Utilizing North Korean Forces in Kursk: One of the main publicly stated motivations behind this decision is the escalating threat depicted by the deployment of over 10,000 North Korean soldiers to support Russian forces in Kursk. U.S. officials clarified that “allowing Ukrainians to use long-range missiles was a response to Russia’s unexpected decision to introduce North Korean forces into the fight.” By permitting Ukraine to use long-range missiles, the United States aims to disrupt Russian-North Korean plans, particularly enabling Ukraine to execute precise strikes targeting critical infrastructure and shared logistical capabilities, thereby undermining the effectiveness of this alliance and preventing any further expansion of their attacks.
Encouraging Western Nations to Support Kyiv: For some time, Ukrainian President Zelensky has sought permission from the U.S. and its allies to use long-range missiles to strike Russian territory, as it would also open the door for Ukraine to potentially receive more Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles from the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, which have similar ranges, alongside loosening restrictions on their use within Russia. Following Biden’s recent approval, France expressed its openness to this issue, with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stating on November 18, 2024, that “Kyiv’s use of these missiles to strike Russian military objectives remains a viable option, particularly after the recent U.S. move.” Some NATO allies welcomed the U.S. step. For instance, Polish President Andrzej Duda praised this decision as “a very significant moment, perhaps a breakthrough in the war.” Meanwhile, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna noted that “decreasing restrictions on Ukraine is a positive development. We have always asserted that there should be no constraints on military support. We need to understand that the situation is more serious than it was a few months ago.” Conversely, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz remains adamant about his stance regarding the delivery of German long-range missiles to Ukraine, citing the risk of escalating the war.
However, his Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock immediately praised the Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to carry out long-range strikes within Russia, stating, “It has long been known that my party (the Greens) sees this issue in the same way our British, French, and American partners do. It is within the framework of international law.” Thus, these internal divisions among Western allies highlight the complexities associated with maintaining consensus among them to coordinate their long-term support efforts for Kyiv, particularly after Biden leaves the White House.
Desire to Shift the Balance of Power on the Battlefield: The U.S. long-range missile systems could play a role in changing the battlefield dynamics, as Ukrainian forces are now capable of targeting high-value assets deep within Russian territory, including command centers, logistics hubs, and supply lines. Consequently, these strikes may succeed in disrupting Russian operations, weakening its ability to support attacks, and forcing it to reallocate resources to protect vital infrastructure. According to U.S. reports, President Biden has linked the use of these missiles to targeting objectives in the Kursk region only, where Ukrainian forces are facing significant Russian reinforcements supported by North Korea. As Biden’s term approaches its end, analysts expect that he might approve the use of these missiles in other areas to secure strategic gains before the transition of power.
Attempting to Force Russia to End the War: Western analysts perceive the primary aim of these maneuvers as placing Russia in a position that compels it to end the war quickly. Providing Kyiv with long-range missiles could enable it to achieve operational successes that lead to a reassessment of Russia’s strategy, thereby creating military and political pressure that forces the Kremlin to negotiate from a weakened position. However, experts note that this approach requires comprehensive coordination between the U.S. and its NATO allies, ensuring that necessary military support for Ukraine is sustained regardless of political changes in the West. Yet, this comprehensive coordination seems unlikely given existing Western divisions regarding this move, particularly with Trump’s imminent return to the White House.
Supporting Kyiv’s Position in Any Potential Negotiations: If this step succeeds in changing the balance of power on the battlefield—an unlikely scenario based on initial data—it could significantly enhance Ukraine’s bargaining power in potential peace negotiations. By demonstrating its ability to escalate the conflict, Ukraine positions itself as a rival capable of inflicting significant losses on Russia; Ukrainians hope to swap any Russian-held territory they control in Kursk for Ukrainian land under Russian control in any future negotiations. Zelensky affirmed in a media interview published on November 16 that Ukraine must enter any future negotiations from a position of strength, regardless of the negotiating platform or mediator, ensuring that Ukraine does not surrender at a minimum. Conversely, this decision could also escalate Russia’s demands or push it to adopt a more aggressive military strategy. Moscow may interpret these strikes as provocations, leading to intensified attacks aimed at regaining influence before negotiations begin.
Moscow’s Options
The recent U.S. decision pushes Moscow towards an escalatory course to avoid weakening its military position. Russia appears to have several primary options summarized as follows:
Expanding Threats to Western Powers: Russia is likely to amplify its threatening rhetoric in the coming period as an attempt to deter Western nations from targeting its territory. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov indicated on November 18, 2024, that “the seriousness and provocation of the situation lie in the fact that strikes deep within Russia could be executed by Western nations, not just by Ukraine.” Peskov also asserted that if the U.S. permits Ukraine to use American-made weapons to target the depths of Russia, it would escalate “tensions,” which Russia would interpret as “direct involvement” by NATO and the U.S. in the conflict.
Continuing to Hint at the Use of Nuclear Weapons: The threat of using nuclear weapons remains one of the cards available to Russia in response to the U.S. decision. President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on November 19, 2024, allowing the military to respond with nuclear arms if the country is attacked with ballistic missiles. This decree includes an update to Russian nuclear doctrine; it stipulates that if a state conducts a ballistic missile attack on Russian territory with support from another nuclear-armed country, Moscow has the right to respond with nuclear force. Russia can also use this right if it faces drone or airstrike attacks.
Seeking Additional Support from Allies: Moscow will turn to its allies for further support in response to the recent U.S. decisions, with Iran likely emerging in this context by supplying Russia with drones and missile systems. North Korea also represents an important ally for Russia, having sent troops to support Moscow in facing the Ukrainian attack in Kursk, amid the strategic partnership treaty between Russia and North Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is eager to strengthen ties with Moscow; on November 18, 2024, he stated that “the United States and the West are waging war against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy force in an attempt to expand Washington’s military intervention worldwide.”
Intensifying Attacks on Ukrainian Forces on Multiple Fronts: Moscow is likely to intensify its attacks on Ukrainian forces across multiple fronts. In Kursk, it will work to apply pressure on Ukrainian troops to push them away from Russian territory. Moscow will also expand its control in Eastern Ukraine and continue aerial assaults using drones and missiles on various Ukrainian areas, alongside expanding its targeting of Ukrainian infrastructure.
In conclusion, the U.S. decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missile systems (ATACMS) represents a pivotal moment in the conflict, enhancing Ukraine’s military capabilities while revitalizing Western solidarity with it. However, it simultaneously imposes significant risks, including the potential for escalation, particularly enhancing Russian collaboration with its allies to secure their support in the war, notably China, North Korea, and Iran. Additionally, it may prove extremely challenging for the U.S. decision to affect the future of this conflict given the limited time before Trump enters the White House, as well as warnings from the U.S. Department of Defense—issued earlier—regarding concerns about a possible Russian escalation of hostilities through increased covert operations against Ukraine’s Western allies, a lack of sufficient long-range missile stockpiles, and claims that Russians may have moved their most valuable military assets out of Ukraine’s targeting range.
