What Ukraine Can Now Do With Longer-Range US Missiles

ATACMS' range, terminal velocity and size of warhead could potentially make a huge difference in the current conflict. It means that Ukraine would have the capability to conduct deep strikes on Russian territory.

In addition, US authorization of their use by Ukraine in Russia would, in theory, also make it easier for other allies to transfer ATACMS to Kyiv. Nearby Poland and Romania have them, as do South Korea and Australia. Authorization by the Biden administration could give those governments the green light to supply the missiles to Ukraine, too.

Washington's decision comes as Russian troop numbers are being swelled by North Korean fighters – the 10,000 North Koreans reportedly in Russia at present is likely just a first wave.

This has coincided with a build up of 50,000 Russian troops near Kursk – the key Russian territory taken by Ukraine earlier this year. Over the past few days, there have been what I would call“probing attacks” by Russia in the area in preparation for what could be a much larger assault to recapture the territory .

In advance of that counter-push, North Korean and Russian troops will need to marshal together before moving to the front – and they will be doing so in assembly areas deeper within Russia.

The military thinking is, if you can hit troops in those deep areas, you can seriously disrupt Moscow's operational reach. And ATACMS are perfect for attacks on tactical assembly areas – their size, speed and range makes them harder to intercept.

Certainly if I were advising the Ukrainian military, I would be looking to use ATACMS to hit both assembly areas, ammunition sites and airfields.

If I had to bet, I'd say there are still deep concerns of escalation but growing acknowledgment that we are entering a transition phase in the conflict.

President-elect Donald Trump has signaled that he wants to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. I assess that authorizing ATACMS now suggests the Biden administration is trying to give Ukraine a better hand during those negotiations.

Alternatively, the current White House may have looked at the growing pro-Moscow support of North Korea and concluded that allowing Ukraine to hit North Korean troops before they can be deployed to the front is the only way to offset the advantage this gives Russia. Besides troops, Pyongyang has sent more artillery shells to Russia than the European Union has to Ukraine.

These rationales are not mutually exclusive. It also appears that to the Biden administration, the imperatives outweigh any perceived risks of the U.S. getting drawn further into the conflict or of an escalatory response from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

My reading of the conflict – and you are getting a sense of this through recent statements fr om Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – is that Ukraine may only have until the end of the next campaign season, that is, spring to summer 2025, to maintain its position.

This is due to the ongoing cost that fighting is having on Ukraine. Kyiv is experiencing problems mobilizing sufficient troops – it has had to increasingly turn to conscription , something Ukraine had tried to avoid.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

This isn't to say that Ukraine has run completely out of steam. But it will struggle to take more Russian-controlled territory. Capturing territory in Kursk was a major achievement, but it was a one-off, high-risk gamble. And fighting in parts of Ukraine's east occupied by Russia is proving difficult.

So is this about helping Ukraine keep control of Kursk?

The reporting around Biden's authorization of ATACMS suggests that Washington is telling Ukraine that the missiles can't be deployed everywhere, just in Kursk .

If Trump does have the ability to force people to talk, as he says he does, that will not stop the fighting. Fighting will continue until the parties agree to a cease-fire, and even after that, it could flare up at any time.

For these reasons, I think you will see Russia throw everything at Kursk, militarily. And Ukraine will do everything it can to keep control of territory there – Kyiv knows that Kursk would be its biggest bargaining chip should it come to negotiations.

Did Trump's victory play a role in Biden's thinking?

I really think that the decision to authorize ATACMS was more about the reality on the ground in Ukraine than politics in the United States. That said, the president-elect's stated push for negotiations as a way to settle the Ukraine-Russia conflict may well have escalated the decision.

Benjamin Jensen is professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps University School of Advanced Warfighting; Scholar-in-Residence, American University School of International Service

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

Share this:

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)