President Joe Biden has made steadfast support for Ukraine a cornerstone of his presidency, particularly in the face of Russia’s ongoing invasion. Throughout his term, he has used the full weight of his office to deliver weapons and financial aid to Kyiv, while persistently working with Congress to secure the necessary funding.
However, one major issue has consistently remained contentious: Biden’s refusal to permit Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) within Russian territory. This stance was driven by warnings from Moscow, which labeled such actions as crossing a critical “red line.”
Now, with just over two months remaining in his presidency and the possibility of Donald Trump returning to office looming large, the Biden administration has shifted its position on this issue.
According to Ukrainian and U.S. officials, as reported by Reuters and various U.S. media outlets, Ukraine has, for the first time, deployed ATACMS against targets within Russian territory. This policy pivot marks a significant development in U.S. involvement in the conflict, reflecting both changing battlefield conditions and the potential implications of a new U.S. administration.
On Tuesday, Moscow reported that six U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles had been launched at targets in its Bryansk region, calling it a significant escalation that marks a “new phase” in the ongoing war. This development raises the question: why has the Biden administration decided to allow such a shift now?
Anatol Lieven, the director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered three possible explanations for this change in policy. The first, which he described as a “more negative” interpretation, suggests that the Biden administration may be acting to undermine the peace efforts promised by former President Donald Trump.
The second, a more “positive” perspective, posits that the administration could be aiming to bolster Ukraine’s position ahead of future peace negotiations, ensuring it is in a stronger stance when talks eventually take place. The third explanation is that the policy shift was a necessary response to evolving battlefield conditions, indicating that the situation on the ground may have changed in ways that made this decision unavoidable.
“It’s rare that a decision of this kind is taken simply for one reason,” he said.
“My own feeling is that the Biden administration’s decision is a mixture of all these things.”
While the Biden administration has not formally acknowledged the policy shift, multiple officials have provided details about the decision to U.S. media outlets.
In an interview with The Washington Post, two anonymous officials revealed that the missiles would initially target areas in and around Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian forces have maintained control since a surprise incursion in August. It remains unclear whether the missiles, which have a range of approximately 300 km (190 miles), will be deployed in other locations.
Since the start of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has been requesting permission to use U.S. weapons on Russian soil. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy intensified these calls following Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. The continued Ukrainian military presence in this area is viewed as a strategic leverage point in any future negotiations with Russia.
Officials have told The Washington Post and other U.S. outlets that the policy shift was largely driven by Russia’s recent move to deploy approximately 10,000 North Korean soldiers to the Kursk region as part of efforts to push Ukrainian forces out. The decision to approve missile use, they said, is intended to send a message to Pyongyang, discouraging it from sending additional troops to assist Russia.
The shift in U.S. policy could strengthen Ukraine’s position ahead of a potential second term for Donald Trump, especially given the stark differences in how Biden and Trump view the future of the conflict in Ukraine. Biden, a strong advocate for NATO, has committed to ongoing support for Kyiv, with the goal of driving Russia out of Ukrainian territory. In contrast, Trump has been critical of U.S. aid to Ukraine and skeptical of NATO, stating that, if elected, he would pressure both Ukraine and Russia to negotiate an end to the war.
Recently, a Trump campaign adviser suggested that, under his leadership, Ukraine might be forced to cede some territory to Russia, further fueling Kyiv’s concerns, particularly given Trump’s close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggested that the timing of the decision could serve two purposes. First, it may strengthen Ukraine’s position ahead of future negotiations, and second, it could raise the political stakes for Trump within his own party.
Miller explained that while the ATACMS missiles might not significantly alter the overall course of the conflict, they could help slow Russia’s advances in the Kursk region, which would be beneficial for Ukraine. He also pointed out that many Republicans still view defending Ukraine as an important part of U.S. national interests.
According to Miller, Trump may decide not to reverse Biden’s decision on the ATACMS, despite the political implications.
Trump’s allies, however, have strongly criticized the move. They have largely framed it as a deliberate attempt to escalate the conflict ahead of Trump’s potential return to office. Donald Trump Jr. voiced this sentiment in a post on X, claiming the decision was meant to provoke “World War 3” before his father could step in to negotiate peace and save lives.
Mike Waltz, a U.S. Representative and Trump’s chosen national security adviser, referred to the move as “another step up the escalation ladder.” He expressed concerns about the uncertain outcomes, telling Fox News, “And nobody knows where this is going.”
Richard Grenell, a former member of Trump’s cabinet, also accused Biden of seeking to “escalate the war in Ukraine during the transition period.”
For months, Vladimir Putin has warned that permitting Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons to strike Russian territory would drastically change the nature of the conflict. In September, he stated that such actions would signify that NATO countries, including the U.S. and European nations, were effectively at war with Russia.
In response to the ATACMS missile strike, Russia has reportedly lowered its threshold for using nuclear weapons. This development has raised speculation that France and the UK may soon allow Ukraine to deploy their own long-range missiles, such as the SCALP and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, within Russian borders.
David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment argued that, given the limitations of the ATACMS, the Biden administration’s decision to approve their use was likely “the least risky” option available.
Anatol Lieven from the Quincy Institute also noted that Russia has a reason to show restraint until the potential Trump administration takes office. While he believes direct conflict with the U.S. is unlikely, he did not rule out other possible retaliatory actions, such as sabotage targeting an ally. Lieven emphasized that Russia has always been cautious about allowing its red lines to be crossed, adding that while the situation is still perilous, it remains “extremely dangerous.”
or a specific category with our 
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.