The Biden administration has tied Ukraine’s hands—even on the tactical battlefield—through restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US-supplied long-range missile systems. This constrains Kyiv’s targeting capabilities in areas deep inside Russian territory. This decision has been binding since late spring. This is particularly true in light of Ukraine’s recent authorization in November to strike these missiles on Russian targets.
Ukraine had planned to employ the Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms) for high-precision target destruction. Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official, granted their requests by shutting them down with a Biden administration review process. Now, any use of missiles against Russian borders must be approved by the US Secretary of Defense. It’s that stringent requirement that this system functions under. On the Atacms, the range is nearly 190 miles. At the same time, Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missile requires US targeting information, thus preventing either weapon from being used for any offensive strike against Russia.
The US has committed to providing Ukraine with more advanced weapons systems, but on the condition that European countries pay for these weaponry. That included the most recent approval of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) air-launched missiles. These Erams can intercept targets more than 280 miles away. Yet those restrictions placed on missile use still should cause alarm for Ukraine’s capacity to hold back Russian progress in an effective manner.
In a statement released earlier this week, former President Donald Trump condemned the Biden administration’s position on military aid to Ukraine. He also reiterated the need for Ukraine to “play offense” in the war against Russia. Without an offensive strategy, he claimed, it would be impossible to win. Beyond our shores, Trump’s comments highlight a continuing debate over the broader effectiveness of US military support strategies.
“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into [Russia]” – Donald Trump
In light of the above, it’s important to note that in a recent interview, Trump sounded cautious about further military escalation in the region. He questioned the rationale behind allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, stating, “Why are we doing that? We’re just escalating this war and making it worse. That should not have been allowed to be done.” His comments highlight the confusing landscape of US military policy and its potential return on investment for regional stability.
Despite these tensions, there has been no major shift in military posture between Russia and Ukraine as of yet. The ongoing limitations on missile usage are likely to impact Ukraine’s strategic options as it continues to navigate a challenging battlefield environment.