The Biden administration’s authorization of ATACMS missiles enabled Ukraine to strike Russia’s Bryansk region, providing Kyiv with new tactical options but raising the risk of escalation as the war enters an uncertain phase.
In the early hours of Tuesday, Ukraine launched a long-range missile attack on Russia’s Bryansk region using U.S.-supplied ATACMS. The strike targeted a military depot near the town of Karachev, causing extensive damage and igniting 12 secondary explosions as ammunition stockpiles detonated. According to Russia’s Ministry of Defense, fragments from one missile caused a fire at the facility, which was quickly extinguished, but no casualties were reported. Ukrainian military sources claim the attack disrupted key Russian supply chains in the area, though Moscow downplayed the impact, asserting its air defenses intercepted five of the missiles. The incident marks a significant escalation, with damage assessments and broader implications still unfolding.
The Biden administration’s decision to authorize Ukraine’s use of long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) against Russian territory marks a pivotal moment in the war, offering Kyiv new tactical advantages but heightening the risk of escalation. With the first strikes targeting Russia’s Bryansk region, this development has sparked debates over its impact on the battlefield and broader geopolitical implications. The long-awaited policy change of US with these missiles, coming just two months before Biden leaves office, has ignited debates on its impact on the battlefield and its broader geopolitical consequences. But it also raises urgent questions about the future of the war, especially with President-elect Donald Trump promising to end the conflict swiftly.
A Tactical Adjustment or A Gamechanger?
The ATACMS, with a range of 190 miles (306 kilometers), will allow Ukrainian forces to target Russian military installations and supply chains far beyond their previous reach. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hailed the decision, stating that the missiles “will speak for themselves.” However, military analysts remain cautious about the extent to which these weapons can shift the war’s momentum.
Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, emphasized that “long-range strikes were always one piece of the puzzle.” While the policy change may bolster Ukraine’s defensive operations in the Kursk region, where it has established a strategic foothold, Kofman noted that the decision comes too late to substantially alter the broader conflict.
“The delay has allowed Russia to fortify its positions and adapt,” he added, highlighting a recurring pattern of U.S. hesitancy throughout the war.
Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, pointed out that the effectiveness of these strikes will depend on the number of missiles supplied and the ability to maintain steady resources for Ukraine’s forces.
“Ukraine has committed some of its best units to Kursk, but holding ground there will require sustained ammunition and reinforcements,” Lee explained.
Escalation Risks Loom Large!
The Kremlin has condemned the U.S. decision as a direct escalation, with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov asserting that it positions Washington as an active participant in the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that any use of long-range missiles against Russian territory would “change the essence of this conflict.”
Moscow’s response has already been severe. On Monday, Russia launched its largest missile and drone strikes on Ukraine in months, targeting critical energy infrastructure and resulting in multiple fatalities. This retaliation underscores the heightened risks of escalation, particularly as both sides brace for intensified combat in the coming weeks.
Observers also highlight the involvement of North Korean troops in the Kursk region, where Ukraine seized 1,000 square kilometers in a daring cross-border incursion in August. Reports indicate that 50,000 Russian soldiers, including 12,000 North Koreans, are now stationed in the area, signaling Moscow’s determination to reclaim this territory. The presence of North Korean forces adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation.
Strategic Implications for Ukraine and the West
Ukraine’s primary aim with the ATACMS strikes is to disrupt Russian supply chains and weaken its capabilities. As Timothy Ash, an associate fellow at Chatham House, explained, “Ukraine needs to hit Russian supply lines, which have been moved beyond the range of its current arsenal.” He also suggested that the missiles could provide Kyiv with leverage in any future negotiations, particularly as Trump’s presidency approaches.
The timing of Biden’s decision has sparked speculation about its political motivations. Some analysts argue that the move seeks to solidify Ukraine’s position before the Trump administration takes over, given Trump’s promises to negotiate a swift resolution to the war. Trump’s foreign policy advisors, including Richard Grenell, have expressed skepticism about the scale of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, raising concerns about the continuity of support under the new administration.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis encapsulated the cautious optimism in Europe, stating, “I’m not opening champagne just yet.” The uncertainty surrounding the number of missiles available and the duration of U.S. support tempers any celebration of this policy shift.
A Missed Opportunity?
The long delay in approving the use of ATACMS echoes earlier hesitations by the U.S. to supply advanced weaponry, from tanks to fighter jets. Critics argue that these delays have allowed Russia to recover from initial setbacks and entrench its positions in occupied territories. As one Kyiv resident lamented, “This should have been used either as a preventative measure or as a sharp reaction in February or March 2022. Now it does not play a big role.”
Yet, the decision still holds symbolic significance. For Ukraine, it represents a rare opportunity to strike back against an adversary that has relentlessly targeted its cities and infrastructure. For the West, it signals a willingness to confront Russian aggression more directly, even as fears of escalation persist.
The Future?
As the conflict enters a new phase, the implications of this decision are far-reaching. While ATACMS provides Ukraine with enhanced military capabilities, it also risks escalating the war further. Russia’s warning of a “tangible response” and its retaliatory strikes underscore the volatility of the situation.
For Ukraine, the challenge lies in leveraging these new capabilities to secure strategic victories without provoking an unmanageable escalation. For the U.S. and its allies, the focus must remain on sustaining support for Kyiv while carefully navigating the geopolitical risks of direct confrontation with Moscow.
President Zelenskyy’s assertion that “the missiles will speak for themselves” captures the high stakes of this development. Whether ATACMS brings Ukraine closer to peace or drives the conflict into uncharted territory remains to be seen. As the world watches, the balance between tactical advantage and strategic risk will define the next chapter of the war.
